July 22, 2023 • 51 mins
History. Science. Dethroned emperor. In this classic episode of Stuff to Blow Your Mind, Robert and Joe travel back to the third century CE to discuss the Battle of Edessa, in which the Sasanian Empire not only defeated the Roman army but also took its Emperor as a prisoner of war. How did the emperor’s capture impact the already crisis-ridden Roman Empire, what do scientists make of his alleged grisly fate and how was Valerian’s fall possibly mythologized by Christian historians? Find out… (originally published 07/21/2022)
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name
is Robert Lamb.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
And I'm Joe McCormick. It's Saturday, and so we are
going into the vault for an older episode of the show.
This one originally published on July twenty first, twenty twenty two,
and it's The Fall of Valerian, Part two, continuing from
last Saturday. Enjoy.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name
is Robert Lamb.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
And I'm Joe McCormick, and we're back with part two
of our series on the Fall of Valerian. Rob, can
you cutch us up? But of course, if you haven't
heard part one yet, you should go back and listen
to that first. But if you, assuming you have, Rob,
can you do a brief refresher?
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Yeah, yeah, I'll refresh everybody on the basics here. So
when are we well? We are during This is all
taking place during the Crisis of the Third Century. This
was a period between two thirty five and two eighty
four CE in which the Roman Empire is facing all
sorts of internal problems just about following apart lots of warfare,
(01:19):
between different would be emperors. There's there's almost an emperor
every year during this period. Meanwhile, in Persia we have
the strong and united Sasanian Empire. And so in the
last episode, we talked about the background, especially on the
Sasanian Empire, background on how Rome reaches this state, why
(01:44):
it's in such crisis, and who some of the major
players are, and what some of the short imperial reigns
consisted of. And so the key conflict though that the
episode revolved around, was on one side, the Roman Empire
under Emperor Valerian and then on the other side the
Sasanian Empire under a Chapur the first and so we
(02:06):
talked about the Battle of Odessa. We talked about this
this enormous military disaster in which not only are Valerians'
forces defeated, but Valerian himself, the Emperor of Rome, is
dethroned and captured by enemy forces. He is a prisoner
of war under the Sasanians. And so this is ultimately,
(02:31):
you know, what drew me into into this whole topic here,
like what are the ramifications of such a defeat, Because again,
while this does not compare to say, the complete taking
of a kingdom or the destruction of its capital, the
enslavement of a people, that sort of thing. It's still
an unthinkable occurrence in many respects because the emperor is
the very apex of the imperium, and now here he
(02:54):
is in the hands of the enemy. So for starters, yes,
one is no longer emperor if one is in enemy hands.
So instantly, once Valerian is giscaptured, the title of Roman
emperor immediately passes on to his son Galienus. Galienus was
already essentially co emperor with his father, and in two
(03:15):
sixty he becomes sole emperor, and ultimately he's going to
reign till two sixty eight eight year reign. Then he
is assassinated. The disaster of two sixty greatly undermined him,
and he almost immediately had to deal with other usurpers
within the Roman ranks. Now on the other side of things,
on the Sasanian side of things, this of course is
(03:37):
a most momentous occasion, and Chahbur the first has it
commemorated in rock relief. I think in more than one
spot that survives. One of the key ones is this
place called Nakshi Rustam. It shows two Roman emperors subjugated
by a figure mounted on horseback that is supposed to
(03:59):
be Sapur the first. So the two emperors here are
supposed to be Valerian, who of course has just been captured.
Also fill up the Arab, the soldier emperor of Rome
who followed the slain Gordian. This is the guy who
signed a treaty with the Sasanians. And there's another rock
relief elsewhere that also shows Valerian bowing before the Sasanian king. Now,
(04:22):
one of the sources that I referred to a lot
in the previous episode is Touraj Dari, who wrote this
wonderful book about the Sasanians. Go back and listen to
that episode for full citation on that source, and he
is referring here to Shapur the first quote. No other
person before could have claimed that he was able to
(04:44):
kill a Roman emperor, make one a tributary, and capture
and imprison a third. Sapor was very much aware of
this feat and did not hesitate to mention it in
his inscription, and ultimately he also ends up commemorating this
victory in his biom graphy as well. Now you'll remember
the idea that he killed a Roman emperor, that is
(05:06):
maybe a beefed up claim. The emperor in question may
have just been killed by his own soldiers, which was
of course a common fate for Roman emperors during this
time of great unrest. Now Here we get into another
really contested aspect of all of this, perhaps the most
contested aspect of the whole scenario, and that is what
then exactly happens to Valerian. We know that he's not
(05:30):
emperor anymore, he is a prisoner of war, but then
what does that mean? What is going to happen to
a supreme ruler in enemy hands during this time? And
we have various accounts of what happened. What happened we know,
for instance, Darry says that the Iranian sources say that
(05:51):
he and some senators and soldiers were deported into Sasanian territory,
but we don't really know for sure what happened. But
the accounts range from the mundane to the horrific, and
all told, none of it is truly out of the
question during this time period, I guess one big question
we might ask is, just like, what was standard treatment
(06:13):
during the day for a captured ruler of an enemy group,
and in fact, we might well look to the Romans
for such an example.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Oh yeah, sure, because so the export of a defeated
ruler to the victorious metropole of the rival empire would
not at all have been an unheard of concept in
ancient Rome. As soon as we started talking about this subject,
a couple of examples came immediately to my mind. These
are by no means the only examples, but these are
(06:42):
the first ones I thought of. One is fictional and
the other historical. So the fictional example is a scene
in William Shakespeare's play Tied to Sandronicus, which, now, to
be clear, this is not like Shakespeare's other Roman plays,
like Julius Caesar, those are based on real historical at
least to some extent, or events that were believed at
(07:02):
Shakespeare's time to be real historical events. Titus Andronicus is
wholly a fictional scenario, but individual elements from it and
scenes in it are based on scenarios that really did happen.
And the one I'm thinking of is the very beginning
of the play. And so, in a scene in Act one, Titus,
the title character is a Roman general. He's returning to
(07:23):
Rome after a long war of conquest against the Goths,
and with him he brings prisoners that he is parading
through the streets, including Tamara, the queen of the Goths.
And then a little bit further down, Lucius says, give
us the proudest prisoner of the Goths, that we may
hew his limbs, and on a pile ad manes fratum,
(07:44):
sacrifice his flesh before this earthly prison of their bones,
that so the shadows be not unappeased, nor we disturbed
with prodigies on earth. And then later Tamara herself, the
queen of the Goths, says, stay Roman brethren, gracious conqueror, victorious,
Titus rue the tears I shed a mother's tears and
(08:06):
passion for her son. And if thy sons were ever
dear to thee, oh, think my son to be as
dear to me. Sufficeth not that we are brought to
Rome to beautify thy triumphs, in return captive to thee
and to thy Roman yoke. But must my sons be
slaughtered in the streets for valiant doings in their country's cause?
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (08:26):
If to fight for king and commonweal we're piety in
thine it is in these Andronicus, stain not thy tomb
with blood, wilt thou draw near the nature of the gods,
draw near them. Then in being merciful, sweet mercy, is
nobility's true badge. Thrice, noble Titus, spare my firstborn son.
So the scenario is, this is the queen of the
(08:49):
defeated enemy nation that Rome has conquered. She is brought
back with her sons, and they are going to do
a human sacrifice of her captive son back here in Rome,
and she's pleading with Titus, don't do it, please, don't
do it, but they're going to do it again.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Not a story or an account directly from the time
that we're talking about here, and not from the Romans.
This is Shakespeare. But still it paints both a grim
picture of what may have been the standard, but also,
at least from in Shakespeare's voice, it's asking questions about like,
is this really the way we should handle things with
(09:26):
when it comes to captives? Is this really the way
to go?
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Of course, as the morality of Roman practices is highly
questionable to us today, I would say even so is
the implied morality of the play, where I don't know
so Tamara eventually becomes the villain, right or I don't know.
I guess it's kind of hard to say within a
hyper violent tragedy and revenge story like Titus Andronicus, But
she eventually becomes the wife of the Emperor Saturn Ninus
(09:54):
and then they end up. Oh, it's a whole big battle.
There's a lot of like watering sons and feeding them
to people. But to bring it to real history, I
think clearly this scene in Shakespeare is based on real
historical events. One example that came to my mind immediately
is the story of Versinjenerics, who was originally a nobleman
(10:19):
of the Arverni tribe of the Gauls. So in the
fifties BCE, Julius Caesar was engaged in a number of
campaigns that came to be known as the Gallic Wars.
It was a war, basically a war of conquest in Gaul,
which gall is an area of western Europe that roughly
corresponds to modern day France. And it's complicated, but basically
(10:44):
the aim of these wars was to bring the various
tribes of the region under Roman domination. Now this is
before Caesar was an emperor at the time he was
I believe he was governor of Gaul, but he was
a military commander, and he was practicing a form of
divide and rule, showing favor on some Gallic tribes and
(11:07):
nobles in order to play them against the other Gallic
tribes and nobles. And I think it is it's alleged
that earlier in this effort Versus Generics, this one particular
Gallic noble had been on relatively good terms with Rome
and with Caesar. But sometime later in the campaign Versus
Generics did a u turn and he ended up mounting
(11:30):
an effort to unite the Gallic tribes in brotherhood to say, okay,
let's stop squabbling with each other. We can't let them
divide and rule us. We got a band together and
fight back. Now I know that initially under Versus Jederics,
the Gulls were actually pretty effective at resisting Roman conquest.
Versus Jederics apparently employed a sort of harass and deprived strategy,
(11:52):
so kind of having quick moving troops moving around and
harassing the Roman column and then also practicing scorched earth
tactics to deprive the Romans of food and other supplies.
So you know, the Romans normally what they would do
is they would move into an area and then they
would confiscate food and other important supplies from the locals
(12:14):
in order to feed their army. Versus Jederics said, okay, now,
what we're going to do is just like burn and
destroy and remove all of the food and whatever area
the Romans are about to move into, so they can't
feed themselves. And this actually was a very smart tactic.
But ultimately the Gulls were defeated. Caesar surrounded and besieged
Versus Generics and his forces at a battle called the
(12:38):
Battle of Alicia and fifty two BCE, and facing certain defeat,
Versus Generics made a bid for mercy, a bid for
mercy for his troops by surrendering himself personally to Caesar.
And this story is told in the work of the
second and third century Roman historian Cassius Dio also sometimes
(13:00):
called Dio Cassius, and Dio Cassius writes as follows, Now,
Versinjenerics might have escaped, for he had not been captured
and was unwounded, but he hoped, since he had once
been on friendly terms with Caesar, that he might obtain
pardon from him. So he came to him without any
announcement by Harold, but appeared before him suddenly as Caesar
(13:24):
was seated on the tribunal, and threw some who were
present into alarm, for he was very tall to begin with,
and in his armor he made an extremely imposing figure.
When quiet had been restored, he uttered not a word,
but fell upon his knees with hands clasped in an
attitude of supplication. This inspired many with pity at remembrance
(13:46):
of his former fortune and the distressing state in which
he now appeared. But Caesar reproached him in this very
matter on which he most relied for his safety, and
by setting over against his claim of former friendship, his
recent eye position showed his offense to have been the
more grievous. Therefore, he did not pity him even at
(14:06):
the time, but immediately confined him in bonds, and later,
after sending him to his triumph, put him to death.
And then I think after this event Caesar basically slaughtered
everybody that the Roman behavior in the Gallic Wars was
extremely brutal. Now, coming back to what Diocassia says at
the end of that passage that he was sent to
(14:26):
Rome for Caesar's triumph and then he was eventually put
to death. Apparently what happened is he was sent to Rome,
where he was held in prison for about five or
six years before being ritually executed after he was displayed
to the public in Caesar's Four Triumphs in forty six BCE.
(14:48):
The Four Triumphs, it was a kind of victory parade
and festival celebrating the conquest of the various nations who
had come under Rome's heel. To read from Dio Cassius
in a different section describing the for Triumphs quote after this,
he conducted the whole festival in a brilliant manner, as
was fitting in honor of victories so many and so decisive.
(15:08):
He celebrated triumphs for the Gauls, for Egypt, for Pharnaces,
and for Juba in four sections on four separate days.
Most of it, of course, delighted the spectators, but the
site of Arseneaux of Egypt, and Arsenau was was a
queen of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, and that dynasty
(15:28):
was unseated by Julius Caesar around forty seven Bce. But
to continue the quote saying of Arseno, whom he led
among the captives, and the host of lictors, and the
symbols of triumph taken from the citizens who had fallen
in Africa displeased them exceedingly. The lictors, on account of
their numbers, appeared to them a most offensive multitude, since
(15:50):
never before had they beheld so many at one time.
And the site of Arsenau, a woman and one considered
a queen in chains, a spectacle which had never yet
been seen at least in Rome, aroused very great pity,
and with this as an excuse they lamented their private misfortunes. She,
to be sure, was released out of consideration for her brothers.
(16:11):
But others, including verse in Generics, were put to death.
And I don't know what the source on this following
detail is, but it seems like most historians agree that
the way versus Generics was put to death was by garrotting,
a kind of ritual strangulation. And I believe in a temple,
but this seems to be a ritual well known to
the Romans, that like a leader of a subjugated nation
(16:35):
would sometimes be brought back to Rome as a kind
of souvenir of the returning conqueror's power, and then put
on public display in some fashion, probably sort of humiliated.
And then after that it seems their fates were varied.
Some were put to death, others were given a more
merciful fate of some kind, maybe released or kept imprisoned.
(16:55):
Though I believe it's interesting that in that passage Diocasta
says that Arsena was released. I think other historians write
that after years of being imprisoned in a temple, Arsenau
was executed on orders of Mark Antony, allegedly at the
behest of Cleopatra. But that again, that's one of those
things that you wonder if that's historically true or if
(17:16):
that's just somebody who's like mad at Antony and Cleopatra
trying to make them look bad.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Right right, there's certainly plenty of that to go around.
By the way, this episode with versus Jenerics was depicted
in the HBO series Rome. I'd kind of forgotten about this,
but once you went through the description, I had to
look it up. I was like, yes, yes, that was
depicted at one point in that series.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Oh, I don't think I've seen that. So they what
do they do to him? And like they strangle him
in the temple, did they put him on parade?
Speaker 1 (17:46):
They either, I think they might. It's been a long
time since I've seen this show, and I'm not in
a big hurry to watch it again, But though it
has a wonderful cast, I believe they have him depicted strangled,
perhaps in a cage in the street or on the
steps of a temple. But again, my memory on this
is foggy.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
So I don't know if this is true. But it
seems like a common received interpretation that Versus Generics was
put to death here because he turned on Caesar and
humiliated Caesar's forces in battle. That you know, because he
had been very successful in stopping them early on, that
this led to him being treated especially harshly. But in
(18:27):
general Roman leaders were very cruel, very brutal, very into domination,
and had a low tolerance for being embarrassed.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
All right, So that leads us back to Valerian and
certainly doesn't look great for him at this point based
on what we've covered thus far. For starters, he certainly
died in captivity. There's no version of the history here
in which he escapes that fate. I guess it should
be noted. As far as I know, there's there are
(19:04):
no surviving accounts that he escaped that fate, and I
guess there's no there's no like real reason, there was
no real faction that had an interest in pushing that fiction,
you know, that in which that version of history served
some purpose or another. Uh. But we'll get it, you know,
we'll get more into that. But you might remember in
(19:24):
our past episode we talked about how how was the
defeat at the Battle of Adessa framed? How are the
particulars of that defeat passed down? And you know, a
lot of times it's about from the Christian perspective, it's
about saying Valerian was punished by God because he was
cruel to Christians back home and had a pope put
to death. And then from the Roman standpoint, it's a
(19:46):
it's about pushing the idea that well, he was weak
and the Susanians were deceptive, uh, and therefore sort of
excuse the loss to some extent. But as we said earlier,
there's a there's a lot of leeway and how we
might actually interpret his death and in now the various
histories have mentioned the death of Valerian in Sesanian hands.
(20:08):
Since we're already talking about the horrific side of things,
let's stick with the horrific side of things, and then
we'll come back to the more mundane possibilities towards the end.
It's kind of a palate cleanser, I guess so. According
to early Christian writer and Christian apologist Lectantius, who lived
two fifty through three twenty five, things were pretty grim
(20:28):
for Valerian. And we have to mention, though, that the
thing about Lectantius is he has a whole axe to
grind here on the survival of Christianity. And he wrote
an entire work titled on the Death of Persecutors, in
which he writes the following about Valerian. And this is
of course a translation here and presently Valerian, also in
(20:50):
a mood alike Frantic, lifted up his impious hands to
assault God, and although his time was short, shed much
righteous blood. But God punished him in a new and
extraordinary manner, that it might be a lesson to future
ages that the adversaries of heaven always receive the just
recompense of their inequities. He having been made prisoner by
(21:13):
the Persians, lost not only that power which he had
exercised without moderation, but also the liberty of which he
had deprived others. And he wasted the remainder of his
days in the violence condition of slavery. For suppor, the
king of the Persians, who had made him prisoner, whenever
he chose to get into his carriage or to mount
on horseback, commanded the Roman to stoop and present his back. Then,
(21:36):
setting his foot on the shoulders of Valerian, he said,
with a smile of reproach, quote, this is true and
not what the Romans delineate on board or plaster unquote.
And just to pause right there, I love how in
this account Lactantas has has the king of the Sasanians
here basically turned to the reader and say, this is
(21:57):
one hundred percent true. I'm not making this up. Don't
believe those Romans. That's good anyway, Like conscious continues here,
Valerian lived for a considerable time under the well merited
insults of his conqueror, so that the Roman name remained
long the scoff and derision of the barbarians, and this
(22:19):
also was added to the severity of his punishment, that
although he had an emperor for his son, he found
no one to revenge his captivity and most abject and
servile state. Neither indeed was he ever demanded back. Afterward,
when he had finished this shameful life under so great dishonor,
he was flayed, and his skin stripped from the flesh,
(22:42):
was dyed with remilion and placed in the temple of
the gods of the Barbarians, that the remembrance of a
triumph so signal might be perpetuated, and that this spectacle
might always be exhibited to our ambassadors as an admonition
of the Romans that beholding the spoil of their captive
emperor in a Persian temple, they should not place too
(23:04):
great confidence in their own strength.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Okay, So it gets very clive barker at the end here,
and they say that that after his torment is in it,
which again Lactantius is saying totally justified. We don't know
if what he's saying here has any basis in fact,
but he's claiming that this he got his comeuppance for
being a persecutor of Christians, and when it was all done,
(23:28):
his skin was removed from his body was dyed red
and then was placed in the temple of the gods
of the Barbarians, right.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Right, pretty horrendous. And again I do love how he
has Sabur basically break the fourth wall and say, hey, Christians,
this is the real story. Don't believe what anyone someone
else tells you, thus acknowledging that there are other accounts
of what happened. So I was I was reading a
little bit more about this. I found a source here.
This was published in Classical Quarterly and two thousand and
(24:00):
six from Erica Reiner, titled The red Ling of Valerian,
and according to Reiner, Reiner writes that the La Tantis
account is by far the most detailed and the most disputed,
and she she shares and weighs in on some of
the other claims that come about to in some cases
add more more details to this particular account. She points
(24:26):
out that only a single account, that of Agathias, who
lived five point thirty through five eighty two, says that
Valerian was flayed alive. This is the only account where
that extra detail is added, almost in like a sort
of like, I can't just retell that story. I've got
to I got to make it a little grizzlier, and
so there's an upping of the ante here. Later some commentators,
(24:48):
including Constantine, add the detail that and then, well, this
is sort of a detail. I guess that he was embalmed,
that Valerian was embalmed, that there's some attempt to preserve
the body.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
So it's interesting, I guess if we're getting info about
not info it claims about this from Constantine. Is Constantine
trying to add on, like jump on the bandwagon of like,
here's how Valerian goalwit he deserved because Constantine was of
course the first Christian Roman emperor.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
I mean it basically falls. Yeah, it basically has to
do with this, with the whole role that Valerian has
after his fall in Christian power in the view of
Christian oppression in the past. So yeah, like he remains
a coin that may be cashed in from time to
(25:41):
time and speeches and so forth. Now another account, this
was from Peter the Patrician, who live five hundred through
five sixty five. This kind of backs up the whole
idea of the skin having been preserved. Peter writes, quote,
even after death, with loathsome art, you kept his skin
and inflicted an undying insult on his dead body. But
(26:05):
then Reiner gets into questioning this whole thing about the
red dying of the skin, because this instantly stands out
like it's one thing. Okay, we can understand flaying, you know, horrific,
but there are other accounts in history of things like
this occurring, and it continues to echo through our fantastic
fiction and our grizzly entertainments. But then the dying of
(26:28):
it red, what does that mean? Like, what is there
something lost in translation? Is there some sort of a
something you know, strange picked up in the telling of
this tale. Hiner mentions that there is at least one
theory that this account of red dyed hides refers to
Valerian having to set aside his purple robes and where
(26:48):
the hide of a mere beast like a donkey or
something in captivity, and this might have been dyed purple
and mockery, But then again, we're talking about purple in
this case, and it seems like all these other accounts
we're looking at, we're definitely talking about the color red. So, however,
Reiner does point out that as outrageous and fabricated as
these accounts of the flame may very well be. They're
(27:10):
also not altogether out of keeping with the ancient world,
and in fact, Sargon the second of Assyria, who reigned
seven twenty one through seven oh five BCE, is said
to have inflicted such a fate on his enemies. By
his own recorded word. He boasted of having defeated king's
flayed and their skins dyed red as red wool, and
(27:31):
Reiner discusses this for a bit and asking questions about
those sort of the linguistics of the matter. You know,
red as blood, red as sunset, read as the horizon.
And it has remained a mystery.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
It is such a strange claim, this idea that the
flayed hide was dyed red. But Rob, you found an
interesting little letter to a classics journal called Nimo sign
that's a journal published by Brill, which addresses this question
of what this could be a reference to. If it's
(28:08):
not just literally the skin being dyed red, could this
have another meaning? And I thought this was so interesting.
So the letter was by a classics professor based in
Ireland named David Woods, and the letter was called Lactantius
Valerian and halophilic Bacteria.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Here's that science angle that we've been mentioning.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
So Wood says, you know, there's really no clear explanation
why Schebor would have dyed the skin of Valerian red.
He acknowledges Reiner's thoughts regarding the flaying tradition, but then says,
there's another possible explanation, and it goes like this, if
Shabour actually wanted to keep the skin of the emperor
as a permanent trophy of his victory, rather than something
(28:51):
that would just sort of rot away, he would of
course have to preserve it somehow, and the standard way
of preserving a hide at that time would be by curing.
This assumption is given weight by a statement of again
the later Roman emperor Constantine, who mentions that Shabur had
ordered Valerian skin to be not only flayed, but preserved.
(29:13):
I think this comes back to what you said earlier
about Constantine making a claim that he was embalmed. Woods
writes that the verb Constantine uses here for preserve in
this context is the same word used for the preservation
of fish at the time, which could refer to preservation
by salting, pickling, or smoking, and generally, if you were
(29:36):
going to cure a hide. In the ancient world, this
would have involved salt. You'd use lots of salt now.
Woods cites a couple of scholars named Rieland and Hochstein
to point out that sometimes the salt curing of a
hide would be compromised if the product was contaminated with
a halophelic bacteria hallophilic, meaning salt loving, that can survive
(30:01):
in extremely salty environments. Apparently, these bacteria are well known
pests in the leather industry, and they produce a side
effect called red heat, just like the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.
And it's called that because the by product of the
presence of these microorganisms is the reddening of surfaces that
(30:23):
they colonize. In fact, if you've ever seen a salt
lake turn red, this is caused by the same strains
of hollophilic microorganisms. Rabbi attached one picture for you to
look at in their outline here. This is a photo
I found of the Great Salt Lake in Utah, taken
in nineteen ninety nine, and it's taken at a place
where the lake is divided by a railroad causeway. On
(30:46):
one half of the causeway, the water looks like normal water,
it's kind of blue green, and then on the other
half the water is bright red.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Yeah, indeed, bright red almost almost leaning a little bit
towards purple almost. Definitely, you get this reddish vibe from it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
So I went to double check this. I was looking, okay,
leather industry sources. I wanted to see about halophilic bacterial
contamination there, and it looks like, yes, this absolutely is
in fact a problem in the leather industry. I found
an article on how to prevent it, or at least
addressing the signs of it, on a trade website called
(31:24):
Leather International. I think this is some kind of leather
trade magazine. I don't know, but the article is just
called putrefaction. To read from it here, they write quote,
sometimes even when hides have been well salted or brined,
bacteria can still grow. These are a particular type of
bacteria which are halophilic or salt loving, and are commonly
colored red or purple, affecting hides that are said to
(31:47):
have red heat under normal storage conditions. For raw hides
or skins, red and purple heat bacteria take a relatively
long time to grow, around two to three months. Therefore,
their presence is an indication that the hides or skins
have been in storage for some time. However, at higher
temperatures around thirty to forty degrees celsius, growth will be
(32:08):
more rapid. The warm humid conditions favored by red heat
bacteria are also favored by other non colored spoilage bacteria,
so if salt levels are not high enough, putrefactive bacteria
may also be present. It was once thought that red
heat bacteria caused no harm to the hide, but it
is now known that some types of bacteria do produce
(32:30):
proteolytic enzymes, which are capable of damaging collagen. Proteolytic enzymes
I think would be enzymes that dissolve proteins. Now this
article also offers preventative measures to keep away putrefactive bacteria,
the kind of bacteria that would cause leather to actually rot.
But they say for red heat there are not really
as many things you can do. I guess maybe it's
(32:52):
harder to keep out, but anyway, I kept looking more
into the idea of these red halo files the salt
loving bacteria. Interesting thing I found is that while many
older sources, including the ones I was just looking at,
refer to red halophiles as bacteria. It seems that most
of the prominent examples of red colored halophiles are actually
(33:15):
now classified as archaea. Now, archia are very similar to
bacteria in many ways. They're both lineages of single celled
organisms without a true nuclear membrane, but they're distinct from
each other. They split off from one another extremely early
in the history of life on Earth, probably something like
four billion years ago, and there are some common structural
(33:38):
differences between them, even though they're both single celled organisms.
In a lot of ways, Archia are just sometimes referred
to as a type of bacteria, But yeah, they're these
different clades, and some of the structural differences that are
found between them have to do with things like cell
walls and membranes, like the chemical characteristics of the lipids
(33:59):
in their cell memora brains are different. But another common
feature relevant to this discussion is that Arkia are most
often found in extreme environments that are less friendly to
other Earth life. So arkia are abundant in extremely hot environments,
such as around deep sea vents or hot springs, or
(34:22):
deep underground in low oxygen, high pressure geological deposits like
around fossil fuel deposits or in extremely chemically unfriendly environments
such as the various salt hells of the world. Now,
I was curious why there would be a tendency for
the microbes that battle for life in these salt hells
to be read in color, and I found a paper
(34:45):
that at least identifies a common biochemical factor. So this
paper was by Ajaran Orn and Francisco Rodriguez Valera published
in FEMS Microbiology Ecology in two thousand and one, called
the contra of halophilic Bacteria to the red coloration of
saltern crystallizer ponds. So in this article, the authors start
(35:08):
by looking at natural hypersaline environments like salt lakes, but
also at human constructed environments like these saltern crystallizer pools.
A salturn is essentially a factory for harvesting sea salt,
and in the old school process, what you do is
you leave a bunch of sea water out in these
(35:29):
pools and you leave it under the hot sun, so
the water content can evaporate, leaving crystallized sodium chloride behind
and you can harvest it. Rob Again, I attached some
pictures for you to look at. These pools are often
kind of arranged in these big reflective rectangles out by
the ocean side. And an interesting thing is that if
(35:49):
you look up pictures of saltern pools, occasionally you will
find that they are red in color. And I was
reading another paper that claimed that testing of the microbial
communities in soil or saltern pools usually reveals that there's
very little microbial diversity. They tend to be dominated almost
entirely by halophilic archaea, like we're just talking about. But
(36:11):
halophilic archaia are not the only things in there. So
to read from a section of or in at all
the paper I referenced a minute ago quote, two types
of carotenoid rich microorganisms have generally been implicated in causing
the red coloration. You've got halophilic archaea of the family
hallow Bacteriacee and the unicellular green alga Dunaleela selina. The
(36:38):
main pigments of the Halobacteriacee are C fifty carotenoids, mainly
alpha bacteria ruberin and derivatives, while Dunaliella accumulates massive amounts
of beta keratine under suitable conditions. The relative contributions of
red Archaea and beta carotene rich Dunaliella cells to the
(36:59):
color duration of saltine crystallizer ponds have been studied in
the past, beta keratine was often found in quantities greatly
exceeding the archael bacteria ruberns. In spite of this, the
optical properties of the salterenbrines were determined primarily by the
Archel community. This apparent discrepancy was explained by the extremely
(37:19):
small in vivo optical cross section of the beta keratine
in Dunaliella cells. As the carotenoid is densely packed in
granules within the algal chloroplast, the presence of even large
amounts of this pigment may contribute much less to the
overall red color than the archel pigments, which are distributed
evenly on the cell membrane. And The study also did
(37:42):
find a small presence of halophilic bacteria in some salturns,
but not others. Like it found actual halophilic bacteria of
a type called Salinibacter that was present in the cryst
in the crystallizer ponds that were sampled from California, but
not the ones that were sampled from Israel, So it
(38:04):
seems there's some geographic variation there, but ultimately they say
yes to create this red color, the most important components
are these extremophile archaea, the salt loving archaea. And I
thought it was interesting that what's causing the red color
here are these carotenoids, which are present, of course throughout
all different kinds of life. If you eat red or
(38:27):
orange colored vegetables or fruits, those red and orange colors
are generally going to be a result of carotenoid pigments.
And of course you know when you eat a red carrot.
People talk about carrots being a good source of vitamin A,
which they are, But what's actually happening metabolically there is
you're eating them and they contain these red orange pigments,
(38:50):
the carotenoids, which then through your metabolism, are turned into
vitamin A. So if woods idea is correct, that actually
what this you know, dying red of the of the
hide of Emperor Valerian, If that is actually some ancient
commentator looking at the skin seeing its red and then
mistaking it being colonized by halophilic archaea, for it being
(39:15):
dyed red on purpose, then what's causing that red color
is probably part of the same family of pigment compounds,
the carotenoids that make your carrots red or orange.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
Fascinating. So yeah, it seems very biologically possible that you
could have an attempt to preserve the hide like this
a flayed skin of human being, and then lo and behold,
it ends up taking on this red color, which ultimately
makes me really potentially feel for this hyde worker. It's
(39:53):
suddenly called in one day to the palace and you
find out you have a particular task ahead of you
you need to preserve of the skin, and then it
ends up turning red, Like how do you How do
you spin that? How do you sell that? I meant
to do that? Yes, or your majesty, might this look
better if it were red? Think about it? They think
(40:14):
about all the connotations of the color. Really get him
on board with this, make it think it was his
idea before presenting him with this hide that ended up
turning this color on you. Right.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
So anyway, that's what wood Woods argues in this letter
that maybe the ancient reports are mistaken. It was not
actually dyed red. Schubert didn't do that on purpose. Instead,
somehow tried to cure it with salt, and then it
was colonized by halophilic bacteria or actually, more likely halophilic archaea,
causing the red heat phenomenon that's been known to the
(40:47):
leather industry actually since ancient times. Woods writes, quote, the
importance of this discovery is that it confirms that the
ultimate source of Lactantious information in this matter must have
seen Valerian's skin firsthand. He then made the understandable but
erroneous assumption that Schuber had ordered the skin to be
dyed red. A humble leather producer would not have made
(41:08):
such a mistake, but few diplomats, ancient or modern, have
a background in the leather industry. Now, I think that's
all pretty well put, except I don't think I agree
that it confirms Lactantius's source would have seen it firsthand,
but I'd agree that makes it more likely.
Speaker 1 (41:25):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And again, on one hand, we have,
of course the older account from Sargon that reminds us
that such horrendous things did occur in the ancient world.
And and then this is something that Reiner gets into
a little bit as well, and pointing out that, okay,
(41:45):
we have these two alleged incidents of flaying and the
reddening of a skin. They occur about a thousand years apart.
But Reiner contends that either perhaps there is some truth
to the conscious account, or perhaps there's this kind of
cultural memory of Sargon's deeds. Ultimately, I think you could
(42:08):
spin this. See this is kind of a trope about
the evil things that Eastern kings do to defeated emperors.
There's some memory of Sargon did this, and then it
gets sort of wrapped into the account. If you need
perhaps something horrible to happen to Valerian in your history
to again prop up the idea that God has punished Valerian,
(42:32):
then perhaps you draw in this historical detail and it
becomes part of your story. Now, on the more mundane
side of things, we do have some other accounts. There's
the writer Eutropius, who was writing between three sixty four
and three seventy eight, and he contended that quote Valerian,
while he was occupied in a war in Mesopotamia, was
(42:54):
overthrown by Shapur, king of Persia, and being soon after
made prisoner, grew old in ignominious slavery among the Parthians.
So in that account, it's like, basically, well, they took
him away, they locked him up, and yeah, he died there.
He was already, by many accounts, an older man, he
(43:15):
was in his sixties, and how long is he going
to live in captivity? In enemy captivity? Now to Raj
Dhari also gets in on this and seems to side
with this interpretation as well, that he the Valerian and
some of his men were sent back into Sasanian territory,
(43:35):
into Bishophur in modern Iran, where one of the carved
reliefs there show him kneeling before the mounted king. In
this area would become known as Valerian's prison. And I
also can't help but wonder, this is just me here,
This isn't anything any of these authors were discussing. But again,
we have these rock reliefs showing Valerian bowing in Roman
(43:59):
emperor's bowing the king of the Sasanians who has mounted
on horseback. I wonder if it's possible you could have
a situation where it's like some sort of misunderstanding of
the visuals here that lead to the idea of him
being a footstool to mount a horse. I don't know, anyway,
there's not really any consensus on when Valerian dies in captivity.
(44:21):
It may have been the same year. So sometimes you
see him listed as having lived till two sixty he
might have been executed more or less immediately or within
that year. Other times you see a date of two
sixty four mentioned, saying that he lived about four years
in enemy captivity before he either dies of some natural causes,
is just sort of removed, or some more extravagant means
(44:45):
of execution. Either way, yeah, you tend to see sixty
or two sixty four. So, yeah, he might have just
lived out the rest of his life in prison. He
may have been made a mockery of. He may have
been tortured to death or flayed following a quicker execution.
And of course the different versions of the tale again
they kind of fulfill different needs, both in the turbulent
(45:08):
years following the Battle of Edessa but also for years
to follow. So we almost end up in this kind
of quantum state where anything any of these accounts seem possible,
you know, and ultimately we'll never know what actually became
of Emperor Valarian.
Speaker 2 (45:25):
Now here's a possibility you probably haven't considered. What if
he was fully externally colonized by hallophilic Archia before he died.
Speaker 1 (45:34):
Hmmm, so he was already read.
Speaker 2 (45:37):
Maybe he's just rubbing salt on his skin all day
long and I don't know it's getting in there.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
I'm not sure. Or here's another possibility. Maybe Valerian removes
his own skin, then escapes and has someone else wear
that skin after he has left, you know, kind of
does a little Hannibal electter thing there or reverse Hannibal lecter.
Speaker 2 (45:55):
Well, it's like face off.
Speaker 1 (45:58):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it could be like face stuff, except
it's like whole skin off.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
Next Nicholas Cage role playing Valerium.
Speaker 1 (46:05):
You know, in thinking about these accounts of rulers being
treated in some cases horrifically or in other cases perhaps
you know, more politely but generally horrifically by these various rulers,
I was reminded of I kept being reminded of this
line in Dune. In the novel, this is a depicting
(46:25):
a scene that is in the recent Part one film
that came out, though this exact line of dialogue I
don't think is present, but basically, the Harconins have moved
against the atreades. And we have that scene where the
baron has Leto Treades captive, and in the book there's
this bit of dialogue it goes like this quote, this
(46:47):
is not a child's game we play. The baron rumbled.
You must know that he leaned toward Leto, studying the face.
It pained the baron that this could not be handled privately,
just between the two of them. To have others see
loyalty in such straits, it sets a bad example. And
I kept thinking about that because so many, especially on
the Roman side, I mean, you have these these emperors,
(47:10):
these absolute rulers whose position is actually rather precarious, and
death is never that far away, and the shadow of
uprising and dethronement, you know, is always present in the
mind of any ruler, even one who enjoys a rather
secure reign. You know. It's a take Autasher the first.
(47:31):
You know, he was able to retire and die a
natural death, but he didn't do that by not keeping
an eye out for all those who tried to rise
up against him. And so it makes me think about that,
Like I guess you get into some of that Shakespearean
morality as well, like the mistreatment of other rulers, like
(47:51):
there has to be this moment where you realize, like this,
this could easily be me, and what kind of example
do we continue to set for these around us who
may one day be the ones to rise up against us.
And it's an interesting moment in Herbert's Dune as well,
because you know, obviously the Baron Harcone or hearkening to
(48:12):
be more authentic here, you know, he's not. He doesn't
feel any actual mercy towards Letto. But it's the idea
that well, the lesser people, the commoners, the soldiers, they
shouldn't see this between us, like there's this, And of
course in the world of Dune, you know, these great
houses are connected in various ways as well. All right, well,
(48:34):
I guess we're going to go and close this out here.
But I've greatly enjoyed this examination of history and histories
concerning the fall of Emperor Valerian. I apologize if I
messed up any pronunciations in this. We had to to
juggle two different tongues here, and I hope that I
(48:56):
didn't get anything wrong. I tried to try to make
sure he hit the unciations correctly. There are a lot
of names today. I think you did good well. Thanks.
Oh and by the way, that Turaj Dhari. That book
is Susanian Iran two twenty four through six point fifty
one AD, Portrait of a Late Antique Empire from Mazda
(49:18):
Publishers that came out in two thousand and eight. It's
a really good read. I recommend it for anyone who's
interested in this time period, in this particular dynastic rule.
It's not not a very thick book, very readable, has
some nice illustrations and maps in it. All right, well,
we're gonna, yeah, we're gonna go and close the book
here on old Emperor Valeria. But we'd love to hear
(49:40):
from everybody out there if you have any thoughts on
the histories at play here, If perhaps we have some
folks out there who have some experience preserving hides and
leather and so forth, and perhaps you can weigh in
on this reddening that we've discussed. And hey, let us
know if there are other episodes in history you'd like
us to. However, I don't know. Maybe there's some other
(50:01):
dethroned nimbers of note in the history books that would
make for a good episode. Let us know. In the meantime,
you'll find core episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind
on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Mondays we do listener mail,
on Wednesdays we do short form artifact or monster fact episodes,
and on Fridays we do Weird House Cinema. That's our
time to set aside most serious concerns and just focus
(50:23):
on a weird film. And you'll find all of this
in the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast feed.
Speaker 2 (50:27):
Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer Seth
Nicholas Johnson. If you would like to get in touch
with us with feedback on this episode or any other,
to suggest topic for the future, or just to say hello,
you can email us at contact at stuff to blow
your Mind dot com.
Speaker 3 (50:49):
Stuff to Blow your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.
Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name
is Robert Lamb.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
And I'm Joe McCormick. It's Saturday, and so we are
going into the vault for an older episode of the show.
This one originally published on July twenty first, twenty twenty two,
and it's The Fall of Valerian, Part two, continuing from
last Saturday. Enjoy.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name
is Robert Lamb.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
And I'm Joe McCormick, and we're back with part two
of our series on the Fall of Valerian. Rob, can
you cutch us up? But of course, if you haven't
heard part one yet, you should go back and listen
to that first. But if you, assuming you have, Rob,
can you do a brief refresher?
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Yeah, yeah, I'll refresh everybody on the basics here. So
when are we well? We are during This is all
taking place during the Crisis of the Third Century. This
was a period between two thirty five and two eighty
four CE in which the Roman Empire is facing all
sorts of internal problems just about following apart lots of warfare,
(01:19):
between different would be emperors. There's there's almost an emperor
every year during this period. Meanwhile, in Persia we have
the strong and united Sasanian Empire. And so in the
last episode, we talked about the background, especially on the
Sasanian Empire, background on how Rome reaches this state, why
(01:44):
it's in such crisis, and who some of the major
players are, and what some of the short imperial reigns
consisted of. And so the key conflict though that the
episode revolved around, was on one side, the Roman Empire
under Emperor Valerian and then on the other side the
Sasanian Empire under a Chapur the first and so we
(02:06):
talked about the Battle of Odessa. We talked about this
this enormous military disaster in which not only are Valerians'
forces defeated, but Valerian himself, the Emperor of Rome, is
dethroned and captured by enemy forces. He is a prisoner
of war under the Sasanians. And so this is ultimately,
(02:31):
you know, what drew me into into this whole topic here,
like what are the ramifications of such a defeat, Because again,
while this does not compare to say, the complete taking
of a kingdom or the destruction of its capital, the
enslavement of a people, that sort of thing. It's still
an unthinkable occurrence in many respects because the emperor is
the very apex of the imperium, and now here he
(02:54):
is in the hands of the enemy. So for starters, yes,
one is no longer emperor if one is in enemy hands.
So instantly, once Valerian is giscaptured, the title of Roman
emperor immediately passes on to his son Galienus. Galienus was
already essentially co emperor with his father, and in two
(03:15):
sixty he becomes sole emperor, and ultimately he's going to
reign till two sixty eight eight year reign. Then he
is assassinated. The disaster of two sixty greatly undermined him,
and he almost immediately had to deal with other usurpers
within the Roman ranks. Now on the other side of things,
on the Sasanian side of things, this of course is
(03:37):
a most momentous occasion, and Chahbur the first has it
commemorated in rock relief. I think in more than one
spot that survives. One of the key ones is this
place called Nakshi Rustam. It shows two Roman emperors subjugated
by a figure mounted on horseback that is supposed to
(03:59):
be Sapur the first. So the two emperors here are
supposed to be Valerian, who of course has just been captured.
Also fill up the Arab, the soldier emperor of Rome
who followed the slain Gordian. This is the guy who
signed a treaty with the Sasanians. And there's another rock
relief elsewhere that also shows Valerian bowing before the Sasanian king. Now,
(04:22):
one of the sources that I referred to a lot
in the previous episode is Touraj Dari, who wrote this
wonderful book about the Sasanians. Go back and listen to
that episode for full citation on that source, and he
is referring here to Shapur the first quote. No other
person before could have claimed that he was able to
(04:44):
kill a Roman emperor, make one a tributary, and capture
and imprison a third. Sapor was very much aware of
this feat and did not hesitate to mention it in
his inscription, and ultimately he also ends up commemorating this
victory in his biom graphy as well. Now you'll remember
the idea that he killed a Roman emperor, that is
(05:06):
maybe a beefed up claim. The emperor in question may
have just been killed by his own soldiers, which was
of course a common fate for Roman emperors during this
time of great unrest. Now Here we get into another
really contested aspect of all of this, perhaps the most
contested aspect of the whole scenario, and that is what
then exactly happens to Valerian. We know that he's not
(05:30):
emperor anymore, he is a prisoner of war, but then
what does that mean? What is going to happen to
a supreme ruler in enemy hands during this time? And
we have various accounts of what happened. What happened we know,
for instance, Darry says that the Iranian sources say that
(05:51):
he and some senators and soldiers were deported into Sasanian territory,
but we don't really know for sure what happened. But
the accounts range from the mundane to the horrific, and
all told, none of it is truly out of the
question during this time period, I guess one big question
we might ask is, just like, what was standard treatment
(06:13):
during the day for a captured ruler of an enemy group,
and in fact, we might well look to the Romans
for such an example.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Oh yeah, sure, because so the export of a defeated
ruler to the victorious metropole of the rival empire would
not at all have been an unheard of concept in
ancient Rome. As soon as we started talking about this subject,
a couple of examples came immediately to my mind. These
are by no means the only examples, but these are
(06:42):
the first ones I thought of. One is fictional and
the other historical. So the fictional example is a scene
in William Shakespeare's play Tied to Sandronicus, which, now, to
be clear, this is not like Shakespeare's other Roman plays,
like Julius Caesar, those are based on real historical at
least to some extent, or events that were believed at
(07:02):
Shakespeare's time to be real historical events. Titus Andronicus is
wholly a fictional scenario, but individual elements from it and
scenes in it are based on scenarios that really did happen.
And the one I'm thinking of is the very beginning
of the play. And so, in a scene in Act one, Titus,
the title character is a Roman general. He's returning to
(07:23):
Rome after a long war of conquest against the Goths,
and with him he brings prisoners that he is parading
through the streets, including Tamara, the queen of the Goths.
And then a little bit further down, Lucius says, give
us the proudest prisoner of the Goths, that we may
hew his limbs, and on a pile ad manes fratum,
(07:44):
sacrifice his flesh before this earthly prison of their bones,
that so the shadows be not unappeased, nor we disturbed
with prodigies on earth. And then later Tamara herself, the
queen of the Goths, says, stay Roman brethren, gracious conqueror, victorious,
Titus rue the tears I shed a mother's tears and
(08:06):
passion for her son. And if thy sons were ever
dear to thee, oh, think my son to be as
dear to me. Sufficeth not that we are brought to
Rome to beautify thy triumphs, in return captive to thee
and to thy Roman yoke. But must my sons be
slaughtered in the streets for valiant doings in their country's cause?
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (08:26):
If to fight for king and commonweal we're piety in
thine it is in these Andronicus, stain not thy tomb
with blood, wilt thou draw near the nature of the gods,
draw near them. Then in being merciful, sweet mercy, is
nobility's true badge. Thrice, noble Titus, spare my firstborn son.
So the scenario is, this is the queen of the
(08:49):
defeated enemy nation that Rome has conquered. She is brought
back with her sons, and they are going to do
a human sacrifice of her captive son back here in Rome,
and she's pleading with Titus, don't do it, please, don't
do it, but they're going to do it again.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Not a story or an account directly from the time
that we're talking about here, and not from the Romans.
This is Shakespeare. But still it paints both a grim
picture of what may have been the standard, but also,
at least from in Shakespeare's voice, it's asking questions about like,
is this really the way we should handle things with
(09:26):
when it comes to captives? Is this really the way
to go?
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Of course, as the morality of Roman practices is highly
questionable to us today, I would say even so is
the implied morality of the play, where I don't know
so Tamara eventually becomes the villain, right or I don't know.
I guess it's kind of hard to say within a
hyper violent tragedy and revenge story like Titus Andronicus, But
she eventually becomes the wife of the Emperor Saturn Ninus
(09:54):
and then they end up. Oh, it's a whole big battle.
There's a lot of like watering sons and feeding them
to people. But to bring it to real history, I
think clearly this scene in Shakespeare is based on real
historical events. One example that came to my mind immediately
is the story of Versinjenerics, who was originally a nobleman
(10:19):
of the Arverni tribe of the Gauls. So in the
fifties BCE, Julius Caesar was engaged in a number of
campaigns that came to be known as the Gallic Wars.
It was a war, basically a war of conquest in Gaul,
which gall is an area of western Europe that roughly
corresponds to modern day France. And it's complicated, but basically
(10:44):
the aim of these wars was to bring the various
tribes of the region under Roman domination. Now this is
before Caesar was an emperor at the time he was
I believe he was governor of Gaul, but he was
a military commander, and he was practicing a form of
divide and rule, showing favor on some Gallic tribes and
(11:07):
nobles in order to play them against the other Gallic
tribes and nobles. And I think it is it's alleged
that earlier in this effort Versus Generics, this one particular
Gallic noble had been on relatively good terms with Rome
and with Caesar. But sometime later in the campaign Versus
Generics did a u turn and he ended up mounting
(11:30):
an effort to unite the Gallic tribes in brotherhood to say, okay,
let's stop squabbling with each other. We can't let them
divide and rule us. We got a band together and
fight back. Now I know that initially under Versus Jederics,
the Gulls were actually pretty effective at resisting Roman conquest.
Versus Jederics apparently employed a sort of harass and deprived strategy,
(11:52):
so kind of having quick moving troops moving around and
harassing the Roman column and then also practicing scorched earth
tactics to deprive the Romans of food and other supplies.
So you know, the Romans normally what they would do
is they would move into an area and then they
would confiscate food and other important supplies from the locals
(12:14):
in order to feed their army. Versus Jederics said, okay, now,
what we're going to do is just like burn and
destroy and remove all of the food and whatever area
the Romans are about to move into, so they can't
feed themselves. And this actually was a very smart tactic.
But ultimately the Gulls were defeated. Caesar surrounded and besieged
Versus Generics and his forces at a battle called the
(12:38):
Battle of Alicia and fifty two BCE, and facing certain defeat,
Versus Generics made a bid for mercy, a bid for
mercy for his troops by surrendering himself personally to Caesar.
And this story is told in the work of the
second and third century Roman historian Cassius Dio also sometimes
(13:00):
called Dio Cassius, and Dio Cassius writes as follows, Now,
Versinjenerics might have escaped, for he had not been captured
and was unwounded, but he hoped, since he had once
been on friendly terms with Caesar, that he might obtain
pardon from him. So he came to him without any
announcement by Harold, but appeared before him suddenly as Caesar
(13:24):
was seated on the tribunal, and threw some who were
present into alarm, for he was very tall to begin with,
and in his armor he made an extremely imposing figure.
When quiet had been restored, he uttered not a word,
but fell upon his knees with hands clasped in an
attitude of supplication. This inspired many with pity at remembrance
(13:46):
of his former fortune and the distressing state in which
he now appeared. But Caesar reproached him in this very
matter on which he most relied for his safety, and
by setting over against his claim of former friendship, his
recent eye position showed his offense to have been the
more grievous. Therefore, he did not pity him even at
(14:06):
the time, but immediately confined him in bonds, and later,
after sending him to his triumph, put him to death.
And then I think after this event Caesar basically slaughtered
everybody that the Roman behavior in the Gallic Wars was
extremely brutal. Now, coming back to what Diocassia says at
the end of that passage that he was sent to
(14:26):
Rome for Caesar's triumph and then he was eventually put
to death. Apparently what happened is he was sent to Rome,
where he was held in prison for about five or
six years before being ritually executed after he was displayed
to the public in Caesar's Four Triumphs in forty six BCE.
(14:48):
The Four Triumphs, it was a kind of victory parade
and festival celebrating the conquest of the various nations who
had come under Rome's heel. To read from Dio Cassius
in a different section describing the for Triumphs quote after this,
he conducted the whole festival in a brilliant manner, as
was fitting in honor of victories so many and so decisive.
(15:08):
He celebrated triumphs for the Gauls, for Egypt, for Pharnaces,
and for Juba in four sections on four separate days.
Most of it, of course, delighted the spectators, but the
site of Arseneaux of Egypt, and Arsenau was was a
queen of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, and that dynasty
(15:28):
was unseated by Julius Caesar around forty seven Bce. But
to continue the quote saying of Arseno, whom he led
among the captives, and the host of lictors, and the
symbols of triumph taken from the citizens who had fallen
in Africa displeased them exceedingly. The lictors, on account of
their numbers, appeared to them a most offensive multitude, since
(15:50):
never before had they beheld so many at one time.
And the site of Arsenau, a woman and one considered
a queen in chains, a spectacle which had never yet
been seen at least in Rome, aroused very great pity,
and with this as an excuse they lamented their private misfortunes. She,
to be sure, was released out of consideration for her brothers.
(16:11):
But others, including verse in Generics, were put to death.
And I don't know what the source on this following
detail is, but it seems like most historians agree that
the way versus Generics was put to death was by garrotting,
a kind of ritual strangulation. And I believe in a temple,
but this seems to be a ritual well known to
the Romans, that like a leader of a subjugated nation
(16:35):
would sometimes be brought back to Rome as a kind
of souvenir of the returning conqueror's power, and then put
on public display in some fashion, probably sort of humiliated.
And then after that it seems their fates were varied.
Some were put to death, others were given a more
merciful fate of some kind, maybe released or kept imprisoned.
(16:55):
Though I believe it's interesting that in that passage Diocasta
says that Arsena was released. I think other historians write
that after years of being imprisoned in a temple, Arsenau
was executed on orders of Mark Antony, allegedly at the
behest of Cleopatra. But that again, that's one of those
things that you wonder if that's historically true or if
(17:16):
that's just somebody who's like mad at Antony and Cleopatra
trying to make them look bad.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Right right, there's certainly plenty of that to go around.
By the way, this episode with versus Jenerics was depicted
in the HBO series Rome. I'd kind of forgotten about this,
but once you went through the description, I had to
look it up. I was like, yes, yes, that was
depicted at one point in that series.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Oh, I don't think I've seen that. So they what
do they do to him? And like they strangle him
in the temple, did they put him on parade?
Speaker 1 (17:46):
They either, I think they might. It's been a long
time since I've seen this show, and I'm not in
a big hurry to watch it again, But though it
has a wonderful cast, I believe they have him depicted strangled,
perhaps in a cage in the street or on the
steps of a temple. But again, my memory on this
is foggy.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
So I don't know if this is true. But it
seems like a common received interpretation that Versus Generics was
put to death here because he turned on Caesar and
humiliated Caesar's forces in battle. That you know, because he
had been very successful in stopping them early on, that
this led to him being treated especially harshly. But in
(18:27):
general Roman leaders were very cruel, very brutal, very into domination,
and had a low tolerance for being embarrassed.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
All right, So that leads us back to Valerian and
certainly doesn't look great for him at this point based
on what we've covered thus far. For starters, he certainly
died in captivity. There's no version of the history here
in which he escapes that fate. I guess it should
be noted. As far as I know, there's there are
(19:04):
no surviving accounts that he escaped that fate, and I
guess there's no there's no like real reason, there was
no real faction that had an interest in pushing that fiction,
you know, that in which that version of history served
some purpose or another. Uh. But we'll get it, you know,
we'll get more into that. But you might remember in
(19:24):
our past episode we talked about how how was the
defeat at the Battle of Adessa framed? How are the
particulars of that defeat passed down? And you know, a
lot of times it's about from the Christian perspective, it's
about saying Valerian was punished by God because he was
cruel to Christians back home and had a pope put
to death. And then from the Roman standpoint, it's a
(19:46):
it's about pushing the idea that well, he was weak
and the Susanians were deceptive, uh, and therefore sort of
excuse the loss to some extent. But as we said earlier,
there's a there's a lot of leeway and how we
might actually interpret his death and in now the various
histories have mentioned the death of Valerian in Sesanian hands.
(20:08):
Since we're already talking about the horrific side of things,
let's stick with the horrific side of things, and then
we'll come back to the more mundane possibilities towards the end.
It's kind of a palate cleanser, I guess so. According
to early Christian writer and Christian apologist Lectantius, who lived
two fifty through three twenty five, things were pretty grim
(20:28):
for Valerian. And we have to mention, though, that the
thing about Lectantius is he has a whole axe to
grind here on the survival of Christianity. And he wrote
an entire work titled on the Death of Persecutors, in
which he writes the following about Valerian. And this is
of course a translation here and presently Valerian, also in
(20:50):
a mood alike Frantic, lifted up his impious hands to
assault God, and although his time was short, shed much
righteous blood. But God punished him in a new and
extraordinary manner, that it might be a lesson to future
ages that the adversaries of heaven always receive the just
recompense of their inequities. He having been made prisoner by
(21:13):
the Persians, lost not only that power which he had
exercised without moderation, but also the liberty of which he
had deprived others. And he wasted the remainder of his
days in the violence condition of slavery. For suppor, the
king of the Persians, who had made him prisoner, whenever
he chose to get into his carriage or to mount
on horseback, commanded the Roman to stoop and present his back. Then,
(21:36):
setting his foot on the shoulders of Valerian, he said,
with a smile of reproach, quote, this is true and
not what the Romans delineate on board or plaster unquote.
And just to pause right there, I love how in
this account Lactantas has has the king of the Sasanians
here basically turned to the reader and say, this is
(21:57):
one hundred percent true. I'm not making this up. Don't
believe those Romans. That's good anyway, Like conscious continues here,
Valerian lived for a considerable time under the well merited
insults of his conqueror, so that the Roman name remained
long the scoff and derision of the barbarians, and this
(22:19):
also was added to the severity of his punishment, that
although he had an emperor for his son, he found
no one to revenge his captivity and most abject and
servile state. Neither indeed was he ever demanded back. Afterward,
when he had finished this shameful life under so great dishonor,
he was flayed, and his skin stripped from the flesh,
(22:42):
was dyed with remilion and placed in the temple of
the gods of the Barbarians, that the remembrance of a
triumph so signal might be perpetuated, and that this spectacle
might always be exhibited to our ambassadors as an admonition
of the Romans that beholding the spoil of their captive
emperor in a Persian temple, they should not place too
(23:04):
great confidence in their own strength.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Okay, So it gets very clive barker at the end here,
and they say that that after his torment is in it,
which again Lactantius is saying totally justified. We don't know
if what he's saying here has any basis in fact,
but he's claiming that this he got his comeuppance for
being a persecutor of Christians, and when it was all done,
(23:28):
his skin was removed from his body was dyed red
and then was placed in the temple of the gods
of the Barbarians, right.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Right, pretty horrendous. And again I do love how he
has Sabur basically break the fourth wall and say, hey, Christians,
this is the real story. Don't believe what anyone someone
else tells you, thus acknowledging that there are other accounts
of what happened. So I was I was reading a
little bit more about this. I found a source here.
This was published in Classical Quarterly and two thousand and
(24:00):
six from Erica Reiner, titled The red Ling of Valerian,
and according to Reiner, Reiner writes that the La Tantis
account is by far the most detailed and the most disputed,
and she she shares and weighs in on some of
the other claims that come about to in some cases
add more more details to this particular account. She points
(24:26):
out that only a single account, that of Agathias, who
lived five point thirty through five eighty two, says that
Valerian was flayed alive. This is the only account where
that extra detail is added, almost in like a sort
of like, I can't just retell that story. I've got
to I got to make it a little grizzlier, and
so there's an upping of the ante here. Later some commentators,
(24:48):
including Constantine, add the detail that and then, well, this
is sort of a detail. I guess that he was embalmed,
that Valerian was embalmed, that there's some attempt to preserve
the body.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
So it's interesting, I guess if we're getting info about
not info it claims about this from Constantine. Is Constantine
trying to add on, like jump on the bandwagon of like,
here's how Valerian goalwit he deserved because Constantine was of
course the first Christian Roman emperor.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
I mean it basically falls. Yeah, it basically has to
do with this, with the whole role that Valerian has
after his fall in Christian power in the view of
Christian oppression in the past. So yeah, like he remains
a coin that may be cashed in from time to
(25:41):
time and speeches and so forth. Now another account, this
was from Peter the Patrician, who live five hundred through
five sixty five. This kind of backs up the whole
idea of the skin having been preserved. Peter writes, quote,
even after death, with loathsome art, you kept his skin
and inflicted an undying insult on his dead body. But
(26:05):
then Reiner gets into questioning this whole thing about the
red dying of the skin, because this instantly stands out
like it's one thing. Okay, we can understand flaying, you know, horrific,
but there are other accounts in history of things like
this occurring, and it continues to echo through our fantastic
fiction and our grizzly entertainments. But then the dying of
(26:28):
it red, what does that mean? Like, what is there
something lost in translation? Is there some sort of a
something you know, strange picked up in the telling of
this tale. Hiner mentions that there is at least one
theory that this account of red dyed hides refers to
Valerian having to set aside his purple robes and where
(26:48):
the hide of a mere beast like a donkey or
something in captivity, and this might have been dyed purple
and mockery, But then again, we're talking about purple in
this case, and it seems like all these other accounts
we're looking at, we're definitely talking about the color red. So, however,
Reiner does point out that as outrageous and fabricated as
these accounts of the flame may very well be. They're
(27:10):
also not altogether out of keeping with the ancient world,
and in fact, Sargon the second of Assyria, who reigned
seven twenty one through seven oh five BCE, is said
to have inflicted such a fate on his enemies. By
his own recorded word. He boasted of having defeated king's
flayed and their skins dyed red as red wool, and
(27:31):
Reiner discusses this for a bit and asking questions about
those sort of the linguistics of the matter. You know,
red as blood, red as sunset, read as the horizon.
And it has remained a mystery.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
It is such a strange claim, this idea that the
flayed hide was dyed red. But Rob, you found an
interesting little letter to a classics journal called Nimo sign
that's a journal published by Brill, which addresses this question
of what this could be a reference to. If it's
(28:08):
not just literally the skin being dyed red, could this
have another meaning? And I thought this was so interesting.
So the letter was by a classics professor based in
Ireland named David Woods, and the letter was called Lactantius
Valerian and halophilic Bacteria.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Here's that science angle that we've been mentioning.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
So Wood says, you know, there's really no clear explanation
why Schebor would have dyed the skin of Valerian red.
He acknowledges Reiner's thoughts regarding the flaying tradition, but then says,
there's another possible explanation, and it goes like this, if
Shabour actually wanted to keep the skin of the emperor
as a permanent trophy of his victory, rather than something
(28:51):
that would just sort of rot away, he would of
course have to preserve it somehow, and the standard way
of preserving a hide at that time would be by curing.
This assumption is given weight by a statement of again
the later Roman emperor Constantine, who mentions that Shabur had
ordered Valerian skin to be not only flayed, but preserved.
(29:13):
I think this comes back to what you said earlier
about Constantine making a claim that he was embalmed. Woods
writes that the verb Constantine uses here for preserve in
this context is the same word used for the preservation
of fish at the time, which could refer to preservation
by salting, pickling, or smoking, and generally, if you were
(29:36):
going to cure a hide. In the ancient world, this
would have involved salt. You'd use lots of salt now.
Woods cites a couple of scholars named Rieland and Hochstein
to point out that sometimes the salt curing of a
hide would be compromised if the product was contaminated with
a halophelic bacteria hallophilic, meaning salt loving, that can survive
(30:01):
in extremely salty environments. Apparently, these bacteria are well known
pests in the leather industry, and they produce a side
effect called red heat, just like the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.
And it's called that because the by product of the
presence of these microorganisms is the reddening of surfaces that
(30:23):
they colonize. In fact, if you've ever seen a salt
lake turn red, this is caused by the same strains
of hollophilic microorganisms. Rabbi attached one picture for you to
look at in their outline here. This is a photo
I found of the Great Salt Lake in Utah, taken
in nineteen ninety nine, and it's taken at a place
where the lake is divided by a railroad causeway. On
(30:46):
one half of the causeway, the water looks like normal water,
it's kind of blue green, and then on the other
half the water is bright red.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Yeah, indeed, bright red almost almost leaning a little bit
towards purple almost. Definitely, you get this reddish vibe from it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
So I went to double check this. I was looking, okay,
leather industry sources. I wanted to see about halophilic bacterial
contamination there, and it looks like, yes, this absolutely is
in fact a problem in the leather industry. I found
an article on how to prevent it, or at least
addressing the signs of it, on a trade website called
(31:24):
Leather International. I think this is some kind of leather
trade magazine. I don't know, but the article is just
called putrefaction. To read from it here, they write quote,
sometimes even when hides have been well salted or brined,
bacteria can still grow. These are a particular type of
bacteria which are halophilic or salt loving, and are commonly
colored red or purple, affecting hides that are said to
(31:47):
have red heat under normal storage conditions. For raw hides
or skins, red and purple heat bacteria take a relatively
long time to grow, around two to three months. Therefore,
their presence is an indication that the hides or skins
have been in storage for some time. However, at higher
temperatures around thirty to forty degrees celsius, growth will be
(32:08):
more rapid. The warm humid conditions favored by red heat
bacteria are also favored by other non colored spoilage bacteria,
so if salt levels are not high enough, putrefactive bacteria
may also be present. It was once thought that red
heat bacteria caused no harm to the hide, but it
is now known that some types of bacteria do produce
(32:30):
proteolytic enzymes, which are capable of damaging collagen. Proteolytic enzymes
I think would be enzymes that dissolve proteins. Now this
article also offers preventative measures to keep away putrefactive bacteria,
the kind of bacteria that would cause leather to actually rot.
But they say for red heat there are not really
as many things you can do. I guess maybe it's
(32:52):
harder to keep out, but anyway, I kept looking more
into the idea of these red halo files the salt
loving bacteria. Interesting thing I found is that while many
older sources, including the ones I was just looking at,
refer to red halophiles as bacteria. It seems that most
of the prominent examples of red colored halophiles are actually
(33:15):
now classified as archaea. Now, archia are very similar to
bacteria in many ways. They're both lineages of single celled
organisms without a true nuclear membrane, but they're distinct from
each other. They split off from one another extremely early
in the history of life on Earth, probably something like
four billion years ago, and there are some common structural
(33:38):
differences between them, even though they're both single celled organisms.
In a lot of ways, Archia are just sometimes referred
to as a type of bacteria, But yeah, they're these
different clades, and some of the structural differences that are
found between them have to do with things like cell
walls and membranes, like the chemical characteristics of the lipids
(33:59):
in their cell memora brains are different. But another common
feature relevant to this discussion is that Arkia are most
often found in extreme environments that are less friendly to
other Earth life. So arkia are abundant in extremely hot environments,
such as around deep sea vents or hot springs, or
(34:22):
deep underground in low oxygen, high pressure geological deposits like
around fossil fuel deposits or in extremely chemically unfriendly environments
such as the various salt hells of the world. Now,
I was curious why there would be a tendency for
the microbes that battle for life in these salt hells
to be read in color, and I found a paper
(34:45):
that at least identifies a common biochemical factor. So this
paper was by Ajaran Orn and Francisco Rodriguez Valera published
in FEMS Microbiology Ecology in two thousand and one, called
the contra of halophilic Bacteria to the red coloration of
saltern crystallizer ponds. So in this article, the authors start
(35:08):
by looking at natural hypersaline environments like salt lakes, but
also at human constructed environments like these saltern crystallizer pools.
A salturn is essentially a factory for harvesting sea salt,
and in the old school process, what you do is
you leave a bunch of sea water out in these
(35:29):
pools and you leave it under the hot sun, so
the water content can evaporate, leaving crystallized sodium chloride behind
and you can harvest it. Rob Again, I attached some
pictures for you to look at. These pools are often
kind of arranged in these big reflective rectangles out by
the ocean side. And an interesting thing is that if
(35:49):
you look up pictures of saltern pools, occasionally you will
find that they are red in color. And I was
reading another paper that claimed that testing of the microbial
communities in soil or saltern pools usually reveals that there's
very little microbial diversity. They tend to be dominated almost
entirely by halophilic archaea, like we're just talking about. But
(36:11):
halophilic archaia are not the only things in there. So
to read from a section of or in at all
the paper I referenced a minute ago quote, two types
of carotenoid rich microorganisms have generally been implicated in causing
the red coloration. You've got halophilic archaea of the family
hallow Bacteriacee and the unicellular green alga Dunaleela selina. The
(36:38):
main pigments of the Halobacteriacee are C fifty carotenoids, mainly
alpha bacteria ruberin and derivatives, while Dunaliella accumulates massive amounts
of beta keratine under suitable conditions. The relative contributions of
red Archaea and beta carotene rich Dunaliella cells to the
(36:59):
color duration of saltine crystallizer ponds have been studied in
the past, beta keratine was often found in quantities greatly
exceeding the archael bacteria ruberns. In spite of this, the
optical properties of the salterenbrines were determined primarily by the
Archel community. This apparent discrepancy was explained by the extremely
(37:19):
small in vivo optical cross section of the beta keratine
in Dunaliella cells. As the carotenoid is densely packed in
granules within the algal chloroplast, the presence of even large
amounts of this pigment may contribute much less to the
overall red color than the archel pigments, which are distributed
evenly on the cell membrane. And The study also did
(37:42):
find a small presence of halophilic bacteria in some salturns,
but not others. Like it found actual halophilic bacteria of
a type called Salinibacter that was present in the cryst
in the crystallizer ponds that were sampled from California, but
not the ones that were sampled from Israel, So it
(38:04):
seems there's some geographic variation there, but ultimately they say
yes to create this red color, the most important components
are these extremophile archaea, the salt loving archaea. And I
thought it was interesting that what's causing the red color
here are these carotenoids, which are present, of course throughout
all different kinds of life. If you eat red or
(38:27):
orange colored vegetables or fruits, those red and orange colors
are generally going to be a result of carotenoid pigments.
And of course you know when you eat a red carrot.
People talk about carrots being a good source of vitamin A,
which they are, But what's actually happening metabolically there is
you're eating them and they contain these red orange pigments,
(38:50):
the carotenoids, which then through your metabolism, are turned into
vitamin A. So if woods idea is correct, that actually
what this you know, dying red of the of the
hide of Emperor Valerian, If that is actually some ancient
commentator looking at the skin seeing its red and then
mistaking it being colonized by halophilic archaea, for it being
(39:15):
dyed red on purpose, then what's causing that red color
is probably part of the same family of pigment compounds,
the carotenoids that make your carrots red or orange.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
Fascinating. So yeah, it seems very biologically possible that you
could have an attempt to preserve the hide like this
a flayed skin of human being, and then lo and behold,
it ends up taking on this red color, which ultimately
makes me really potentially feel for this hyde worker. It's
(39:53):
suddenly called in one day to the palace and you
find out you have a particular task ahead of you
you need to preserve of the skin, and then it
ends up turning red, Like how do you How do
you spin that? How do you sell that? I meant
to do that? Yes, or your majesty, might this look
better if it were red? Think about it? They think
(40:14):
about all the connotations of the color. Really get him
on board with this, make it think it was his
idea before presenting him with this hide that ended up
turning this color on you. Right.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
So anyway, that's what wood Woods argues in this letter
that maybe the ancient reports are mistaken. It was not
actually dyed red. Schubert didn't do that on purpose. Instead,
somehow tried to cure it with salt, and then it
was colonized by halophilic bacteria or actually, more likely halophilic archaea,
causing the red heat phenomenon that's been known to the
(40:47):
leather industry actually since ancient times. Woods writes, quote, the
importance of this discovery is that it confirms that the
ultimate source of Lactantious information in this matter must have
seen Valerian's skin firsthand. He then made the understandable but
erroneous assumption that Schuber had ordered the skin to be
dyed red. A humble leather producer would not have made
(41:08):
such a mistake, but few diplomats, ancient or modern, have
a background in the leather industry. Now, I think that's
all pretty well put, except I don't think I agree
that it confirms Lactantius's source would have seen it firsthand,
but I'd agree that makes it more likely.
Speaker 1 (41:25):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And again, on one hand, we have,
of course the older account from Sargon that reminds us
that such horrendous things did occur in the ancient world.
And and then this is something that Reiner gets into
a little bit as well, and pointing out that, okay,
(41:45):
we have these two alleged incidents of flaying and the
reddening of a skin. They occur about a thousand years apart.
But Reiner contends that either perhaps there is some truth
to the conscious account, or perhaps there's this kind of
cultural memory of Sargon's deeds. Ultimately, I think you could
(42:08):
spin this. See this is kind of a trope about
the evil things that Eastern kings do to defeated emperors.
There's some memory of Sargon did this, and then it
gets sort of wrapped into the account. If you need
perhaps something horrible to happen to Valerian in your history
to again prop up the idea that God has punished Valerian,
(42:32):
then perhaps you draw in this historical detail and it
becomes part of your story. Now, on the more mundane
side of things, we do have some other accounts. There's
the writer Eutropius, who was writing between three sixty four
and three seventy eight, and he contended that quote Valerian,
while he was occupied in a war in Mesopotamia, was
(42:54):
overthrown by Shapur, king of Persia, and being soon after
made prisoner, grew old in ignominious slavery among the Parthians.
So in that account, it's like, basically, well, they took
him away, they locked him up, and yeah, he died there.
He was already, by many accounts, an older man, he
(43:15):
was in his sixties, and how long is he going
to live in captivity? In enemy captivity? Now to Raj
Dhari also gets in on this and seems to side
with this interpretation as well, that he the Valerian and
some of his men were sent back into Sasanian territory,
(43:35):
into Bishophur in modern Iran, where one of the carved
reliefs there show him kneeling before the mounted king. In
this area would become known as Valerian's prison. And I
also can't help but wonder, this is just me here,
This isn't anything any of these authors were discussing. But again,
we have these rock reliefs showing Valerian bowing in Roman
(43:59):
emperor's bowing the king of the Sasanians who has mounted
on horseback. I wonder if it's possible you could have
a situation where it's like some sort of misunderstanding of
the visuals here that lead to the idea of him
being a footstool to mount a horse. I don't know, anyway,
there's not really any consensus on when Valerian dies in captivity.
(44:21):
It may have been the same year. So sometimes you
see him listed as having lived till two sixty he
might have been executed more or less immediately or within
that year. Other times you see a date of two
sixty four mentioned, saying that he lived about four years
in enemy captivity before he either dies of some natural causes,
is just sort of removed, or some more extravagant means
(44:45):
of execution. Either way, yeah, you tend to see sixty
or two sixty four. So, yeah, he might have just
lived out the rest of his life in prison. He
may have been made a mockery of. He may have
been tortured to death or flayed following a quicker execution.
And of course the different versions of the tale again
they kind of fulfill different needs, both in the turbulent
(45:08):
years following the Battle of Edessa but also for years
to follow. So we almost end up in this kind
of quantum state where anything any of these accounts seem possible,
you know, and ultimately we'll never know what actually became
of Emperor Valarian.
Speaker 2 (45:25):
Now here's a possibility you probably haven't considered. What if
he was fully externally colonized by hallophilic Archia before he died.
Speaker 1 (45:34):
Hmmm, so he was already read.
Speaker 2 (45:37):
Maybe he's just rubbing salt on his skin all day
long and I don't know it's getting in there.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
I'm not sure. Or here's another possibility. Maybe Valerian removes
his own skin, then escapes and has someone else wear
that skin after he has left, you know, kind of
does a little Hannibal electter thing there or reverse Hannibal lecter.
Speaker 2 (45:55):
Well, it's like face off.
Speaker 1 (45:58):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it could be like face stuff, except
it's like whole skin off.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
Next Nicholas Cage role playing Valerium.
Speaker 1 (46:05):
You know, in thinking about these accounts of rulers being
treated in some cases horrifically or in other cases perhaps
you know, more politely but generally horrifically by these various rulers,
I was reminded of I kept being reminded of this
line in Dune. In the novel, this is a depicting
(46:25):
a scene that is in the recent Part one film
that came out, though this exact line of dialogue I
don't think is present, but basically, the Harconins have moved
against the atreades. And we have that scene where the
baron has Leto Treades captive, and in the book there's
this bit of dialogue it goes like this quote, this
(46:47):
is not a child's game we play. The baron rumbled.
You must know that he leaned toward Leto, studying the face.
It pained the baron that this could not be handled privately,
just between the two of them. To have others see
loyalty in such straits, it sets a bad example. And
I kept thinking about that because so many, especially on
the Roman side, I mean, you have these these emperors,
(47:10):
these absolute rulers whose position is actually rather precarious, and
death is never that far away, and the shadow of
uprising and dethronement, you know, is always present in the
mind of any ruler, even one who enjoys a rather
secure reign. You know. It's a take Autasher the first.
(47:31):
You know, he was able to retire and die a
natural death, but he didn't do that by not keeping
an eye out for all those who tried to rise
up against him. And so it makes me think about that,
Like I guess you get into some of that Shakespearean
morality as well, like the mistreatment of other rulers, like
(47:51):
there has to be this moment where you realize, like this,
this could easily be me, and what kind of example
do we continue to set for these around us who
may one day be the ones to rise up against us.
And it's an interesting moment in Herbert's Dune as well,
because you know, obviously the Baron Harcone or hearkening to
(48:12):
be more authentic here, you know, he's not. He doesn't
feel any actual mercy towards Letto. But it's the idea
that well, the lesser people, the commoners, the soldiers, they
shouldn't see this between us, like there's this, And of
course in the world of Dune, you know, these great
houses are connected in various ways as well. All right, well,
(48:34):
I guess we're going to go and close this out here.
But I've greatly enjoyed this examination of history and histories
concerning the fall of Emperor Valerian. I apologize if I
messed up any pronunciations in this. We had to to
juggle two different tongues here, and I hope that I
(48:56):
didn't get anything wrong. I tried to try to make
sure he hit the unciations correctly. There are a lot
of names today. I think you did good well. Thanks.
Oh and by the way, that Turaj Dhari. That book
is Susanian Iran two twenty four through six point fifty
one AD, Portrait of a Late Antique Empire from Mazda
(49:18):
Publishers that came out in two thousand and eight. It's
a really good read. I recommend it for anyone who's
interested in this time period, in this particular dynastic rule.
It's not not a very thick book, very readable, has
some nice illustrations and maps in it. All right, well,
we're gonna, yeah, we're gonna go and close the book
here on old Emperor Valeria. But we'd love to hear
(49:40):
from everybody out there if you have any thoughts on
the histories at play here, If perhaps we have some
folks out there who have some experience preserving hides and
leather and so forth, and perhaps you can weigh in
on this reddening that we've discussed. And hey, let us
know if there are other episodes in history you'd like
us to. However, I don't know. Maybe there's some other
(50:01):
dethroned nimbers of note in the history books that would
make for a good episode. Let us know. In the meantime,
you'll find core episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind
on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Mondays we do listener mail,
on Wednesdays we do short form artifact or monster fact episodes,
and on Fridays we do Weird House Cinema. That's our
time to set aside most serious concerns and just focus
(50:23):
on a weird film. And you'll find all of this
in the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast feed.
Speaker 2 (50:27):
Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer Seth
Nicholas Johnson. If you would like to get in touch
with us with feedback on this episode or any other,
to suggest topic for the future, or just to say hello,
you can email us at contact at stuff to blow
your Mind dot com.
Speaker 3 (50:49):
Stuff to Blow your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.
Stuff To Blow Your Mind News
Hosts And Creators
Robert Lamb
Joe McCormick
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.