There’s only 1 Caesar, or Slim Shady, or Charlemagne or Attila.

  • samsamsamsam@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Alexander” was an incredibly common name in the Greek world. Even within his own family tree, he was technically Alexander III of Macedon. Using “The Great” was a practical necessity for historians to distinguish him from his father’s predecessors and the dozens of other Alexanders running around the Mediterranean. Plus his scale of impact was absurd! Charlemagne literally means “Charles the Great” because there were many Charleses. Finally, while we usually think of Julius Caesar, “Caesar” became a title used by every Roman Emperor for centuries. It eventually evolved into “Kaiser” and “Tsar”. If you just say “Caesar” in a room full of Roman history buffs they actually will ask you to disambiguate which one you mean

    • Tommelot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Does this technically mean the the little orange freakshow is also a ‘Donald the Great’? He’s technically the most succesful ‘Donald’, as the only one why made it to leader of a country and the only one with diapers and a nussy.

      • backalleycoyote@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Names only stick if history validates you. Plenty of other rulers ended up getting remembered through the lens of discontent, bad press by who came later, and sometimes mistranslation. Ivan IV Grozny was a ruthless dude, but “Grozny” meant awe-provoking or imposing, whereas in English “Terrible” tends to imply evil. Æthelred II Unræd meant “good counsel”, but as that word fell out of use in English he got stuck with “Unready” because it just happens to be similar in form but not meaning.

        Donnie probably wishes he’ll be remembered as something special, but informally Diaper Don will outlive him and I don’t foresee history being gentle with its performance review.