by
Damien F. Mackey
“Heraclius seems to
have one foot in Davidic Israel, one in the old
Roman Republic, and,
whatever feet may be left, in the Christian era.
What a mix of a man is
this emperor Heraclius! What a conundrum!
What a puzzle!”
Introduction
The supposed
Byzantine emperor, Heraclius (610-641 AD), is a total historical mis-fit.
And an
hilarious one at that!
In an
exchange, today (5th October, 2026), with other interested persons,
I wrote:
…. My big problem with the
larger-than-life Jay Smith, though, and with Patricia Crone, is that they
greatly complicate matters, becoming almost unreadable, unlistenable, by trying
to consider Mohammed in a murky conventional C7th AD context.
Those Germans who have
been radically revising what we have called AD history, and who have been
removing the ‘Dark Ages’ – {many of whose conclusions I personally would not
accept, I need to say} - have a much better idea of how to approach all of
this. A lot of text book ‘history’ simply needs to be completely cleared out,
emptied, not fossicked about in.
For there must be
something seriously wrong with a C7th AD scenario that presents us with another
biblical Jonah; another biblical Nehemiah; another biblical Sheshbazzar
(Shahrbaraz); another biblical Nineveh; and the biblical composite ‘Mohammed’.
A scholar cannot work
amongst that sort of artificiality!
But the champion of the
whole fictitious circus is the ringmaster himself, the most splendid, most
spectacular, Heraclius (610-641
AD), a younger contemporary of ‘Mohammed’. Most famous is this marvellous
Byzantine wonder-working emperor - a veritable Don Quixote on steroids - for
the “Battle of Nineveh” (627 AD), no less.
I got great fun out of
writing:
Something almost
miraculous about our emperor Heraclius
(9) Something
almost miraculous about our emperor Heraclius
“Heraclius seems to have
one foot in Davidic Israel, one in the old
Roman Republic, and,
whatever feet may be left (because this definitely cannot be right), in the
Christian era. What a mix of a man is this emperor Heraclius! What a conundrum!
What a puzzle!”
While Mohammed may be a
far-ranging biblical composite, the emperor Heraclius is what I have called “a
composite to end all composites”. Perhaps only Donald Trump has claimed more
hats than were supposedly worn by Heraclius - except that the latter is hilarious
fiction, Trump is neither.
For the beginnings of my efforts (not as
yet convincingly well co-ordinated) to reform the conventional C7th AD, see my
article:
Scrutinising the C7th AD for its conundrums and
anachronisms
(1) Scrutinising
the C7th AD for its conundrums and anachronisms
His historical basis
Given that the presumed
contemporaries of emperor Heraclius as referred to above: Jonah; Nehemiah;
Shahrbaraz; Mohammed; plus the city of Nineveh; were all biblically based – {Jonah
as the prophet Jonah; Nehemiah as the Tirshatha Nehemiah; Shahrbaraz as
Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8); Mohammed as a biblical composite; and Nineveh as the
Assyrian capital of Nineveh} – then one
might logically consider that the emperor Heraclius, too, who most certainly
cannot have been a genuine historical character (see article above), was based
upon some notable biblical hero.
If so, then who may have
been that biblical person?
Well Heraclius is most
famous for the “Battle of Nineveh” which he is supposed to have won convincingly.
Thus, we could begin by considering some Old Testament notable who had success
against Nineveh, and/or the Assyrians.
Someone preferably with a
name compatible with Heraclius.
We do not have to go very
far to find him.
The most famous victory
against the Assyrians, the defeat of Sennacherib’s 185,000, attested not only
in various books of the Bible but also in e.g. Greco-Roman literature, occurred
during the reign of King Hezekiah, whose name, with the replacement of the letter
z with an r, and the removal of the added theophoric element (iah)
at the end, becomes, virtually, Herac-lius. Thus:
He[z]ek- iah
He[r]ac-[l]ius
Although I would not
anticipate any really tight correspondence between the historical,
well-documented reign of King Hezekiah of Judah and the deliciously crazy,
fictitious, reign of the emperor Heraclius, I would nonetheless expect to be
able to identify certain strange biblical afterglows in the haphazard story of
the latter.
Let us take a brief peek
at some of what convention dishes up as the life and career of Heraclius: Heraclius - Wikipedia
….
Heraclius's reign was
marked by wars against the Persians and the Arabs.
My comment: For “Persians”, read
Assyrians.
Heraclius immediately took
charge of the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 upon his accession,
but his leadership initially did little to stem Persian ascendency in the war;
after personally losing the Battle
of Antioch (613),
the Persians were able to take Syria and Egypt, reducing the Empire to Asia Minor.
My comment: This was King
Sennacherib of Assyria’s successful Third Campaign (Year 9), fused with
the later, ill-fated campaign led by his son, Ashur-nadin-shumi (the
“Holofernes” of the Book of Judith).
Heraclius, however,
avoided total defeat and initiated reforms to rebuild and strengthen the
military.
My comment: Hezekiah virtually
endured total defeat with his main forts all destroyed and with Jerusalem under
siege. He was, indeed, a reforming king par excellence, following on
from the good example of his ancestor, David, and he did fortify Jerusalem and
secure the water supply.
Heraclius drove the
Persians out of Asia Minor and pushed deep into their territory, defeating them
in 627 at the Battle
of Nineveh and
devastating much of Mesopotamia.
My comment: Not quite right. After
Judith’s intervention, the Jews were able to drive the Assyrians right out of
the land of Israel and back to Mesopotamia, with the enemy suffering massive
losses. This was the basis for Heraclius’s so-called Battle of Nineveh. Not 627
AD, but more like c. 700 BC!
The Persian Shah Khosrow II was overthrown and
executed by his son Kavad
II, who
soon sued for a peace treaty, agreeing to withdraw from all occupied territory.
My comment: Not long after
Sennacherib’s crushing defeat, he was indeed assassinated – but by two of his
sons, not one.
Khosrow may be something
of a title, like e.g. Pharaoh. (Or, is it a variant for Assyria?)
“The Persian Shah Khosrow II”, here, must stand for
Sennacherib, the Great King of Assyria. Whilst the “son Kavad II” - though presumably representing
Sennacherib’s murderers, Adrammelech and Sharezer (cf. 2 Kings 19:37) -
equates better name-wise, however, to Sennacherib’s non-regicide successor,
Esarhaddon. Thus:
E-sa[r]had-don
KA
VAD
Unlike in the
Heraclius-Khosrow II scenario, the Assyrian regicide pair can be historically
identified:
Adrammelech and
Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib
(3) Adrammelech
and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib
Heraclius won the war, but
his Empire was deeply strained.
My
comment: Sadly,
everything about emperor Heraclius and his supposed “Empire” is “deeply
strained”.
No comments:
Post a Comment