Read history

165 in the East, 166 at Rome

An illness the orator Aelius Aristides described near Smyrna in the summer of 165 is a possible early firsthand instance of the epidemic later called the Antonine Plague. The association is plausible but not certain.

Ancient narratives also tie the pestilence to Roman operations at Seleucia in Mesopotamia in the winter of 165–166, though that tradition does not securely establish where the pathogen came from.

The epidemic is securely placed at Rome only in 166, when returning forces from the Parthian campaign were understood to have carried the infection westward.

Two stages compressed into one

So the claim that the pandemic “breaks out in Rome” in 165 folds together eastern evidence from 165 and the Roman outbreak of 166. There was no single identifiable outbreak day in either year.

Galen encountered the epidemic at Rome and then left the city for Pergamum; by 168–169 he was observing epidemic illness among troops in northern Italy. He described survivors developing a dark, ulcerated rash over the body around the ninth day.

What “plague” does not mean here

The word means pestilence. It does not identify bubonic plague caused by Yersinia pestis, and the diagnosis remains open: Galen’s descriptions strongly resemble smallpox, but no ancient DNA from a securely identified victim has confirmed the pathogen.

No reliable empire-wide mortality total exists either. Figures such as five to ten million deaths are model-dependent estimates, not ancient counts.

The year is an editorial marker

The scholarship consulted identifies no event in 200 CE at which “Brahmanism” became “Hinduism”. What it describes instead are transformations extending across many centuries.

Scholars do not even agree on where to place the marker. One periodization begins the development from Brahmanism toward what is now called Hinduism around 200 BCE — four centuries earlier than this entry.

What was actually under way

During the early centuries CE, heterogeneous Vedic and Brahmanical traditions continued merging with popular customs while religious texts, devotional traditions and material forms developed. Vishnu, Shiva and Devi became more central to major devotional traditions unevenly, through textual, regional and material channels rather than in any single year.

A Metropolitan Museum history places the coalescence of recognizable Hinduism near the beginning of the first millennium CE, and dates the formulation of the Puranas broadly to 200–800 CE.

The categories are contested too

“Hinduism” and “Brahmanism” are themselves debated analytical categories, and “Hinduism” was not then a universally used self-designation. Brahmanism did not disappear and get replaced overnight by a separate religion.

Hindu traditions also cannot be reduced to Brahmanism alone. Scholarship describes heterogeneous Vedic, regional, devotional and ascetic sources, developing within an environment that included Buddhist and Jain movements to which Brahmanical traditions were responding.

The recruits who made their own emperor

The murders are listed under 22 March 235, near Mogontiacum — modern Mainz — where the Rhine army was preparing for a campaign against Germanic peoples. Herodian reports that recruits first acclaimed the equestrian commander Maximinus on their drill field; Maximinus then doubled their rations, promised gifts and marched toward Alexander's nearby headquarters.

Alexander had himself put Maximinus in charge of training those recruits. When the two forces met, Alexander's soldiers refused to fight, deserted him and joined Maximinus, who was then acclaimed by the combined army.

Maximinus sent a tribune and several centurions into the imperial quarters, where they killed Severus Alexander, his mother Julia Mamaea, and followers who resisted.

Why 22 March is not secure

The exact day is not securely established. Modern works variously give 19, 20, 21 or 22 March, while the Oxford Classical Dictionary conservatively gives February or March 235; the Livius chronology attached to Herodian's narrative labels the relevant episode February 235.

One influential chronological reconstruction identified 19 March as Alexander's death date and 6 March as Maximinus's accession — which would put the acclamation and the murders on separate days rather than one.

That separation is in Herodian too. His sequence has Maximinus proclaimed first and the killers dispatched afterward, so the mutiny and the murder are not a single dated moment even in the fullest ancient account.

What ended in the imperial quarters

With Alexander and Mamaea dead and the troops accepting Maximinus, the Severan dynasty ended. Maximinus held the Rhine army without having reached the throne through dynastic succession.

Herodian is the fullest narrative source for the episode, but his hostile gendered portrayal of Mamaea and his dramatized speeches are not verbatim evidence of what was said.

"The Crisis of the Third Century" is a modern periodization covering 235 to 284, not something contemporaries declared that day; counts of the emperors it produced vary with what is included, and one modern scholarly count gives at least 22.

What the tradition describes

In the Armenian tradition attributed to Agathangelos, King Tiridates III converted after Gregory the Illuminator healed him, then authorized Gregory to suppress pagan shrines and lead the Armenian church, sending him to Caesarea to be consecrated bishop by Leontius.

The 301 entry compresses two things into one day that the sources do not: a conversion of the king and court, and the subsequent organizing of clergy, churches and missionary work. No contemporary Armenian document records a one-day proclamation establishing a state religion.

Gregory, in that narrative, marked the future church site at Vagharshapat after a vision and had a wall and a cross placed there — but erected no altars until he had been consecrated.

301, or about 314

301 is the traditional Armenian date, calculated centuries after the event. Encyclopaedia Iranica identifies Gregory's consecration at Caesarea as probably occurring in 314, and a modern scholarly treatment places the baptism of Tiridates, his household and some ruling families around that year.

Scholarly treatments commonly prefer about 314, while other dates have been proposed, so the celebrated anniversary may be roughly thirteen years early.

The narrative itself is late: the History attributed to Agathangelos was completed after the mid-fifth century, though its narrator claims to be Tiridates' contemporary.

A court converted, not a country

The royal household and some leading families accepted baptism, and Christian shrines and crosses began replacing selected cult sites. Much of Armenia did not follow at once — some of the kingdom's most powerful clans stayed attached to Iranian religious traditions.

The cathedral has a similar problem of layers. UNESCO records the traditional 301–303 foundation by Tiridates and Gregory, while the surviving cathedral's central fabric was built under Vahan Mamikonian in the rebuilding of 483/484.

Beneath the cathedral's east apse, excavators found remains interpreted as a fire temple, and an Urartian stele elsewhere in the complex. The ground holds that much and no more: it does not confirm the story Agathangelos built around the site.

Where 375 comes from

No contemporary or securely dated source records Rav Ashi writing, beginning or completing the Babylonian Talmud in 375. Traditional chronology places his generation at roughly 375–425, which likely explains how the year got converted into a supposed composition date.

Those traditional dates derive largely from later rabbinic sources rather than contemporary documentation. Sherira Gaon’s influential chronology of tannaim, amoraim, savoraim and geonim was written in his epistle of 987 — centuries after Rav Ashi.

A phrase doing a great deal of work

A passage within the Bavli retrospectively calls Rav Ashi and Ravina the “end of instruction.” It supplies neither the year 375 nor any claim that one man wrote the finished work, and what it means is itself debated.

Modern scholarship describes the Bavli as the work of rabbis and editors active from the third through the sixth or seventh centuries, with major unattributed editorial layers later than Rav Ashi. A recent Oxford reference work places the shaping of the material into an encyclopedic anthology in sixth-century Sasanian Mesopotamia.

Not simply a commentary on the Mishnah

The Bavli is arranged around the Mishnah but also carries biblical interpretation, narratives, medicine, ethics, folklore and extended legal argument. The Mishnah has 63 tractates in six orders; the Bavli has Gemara on only about 37 of them.

Even the familiar page is late. The 2,711 units of the Daf Yomi cycle are double-sided folios, a layout descended from early-modern printed editions that cannot be projected back to 375.

28 August 430, inside a besieged city

Augustine died at Hippo Regius on 28 August 430 while Gaiseric's Vandals besieged the city. The calendar date comes from Prosper's Chronicle.

Possidius, a fellow bishop who had taken refuge in Hippo and was present at the end, says the fever set in during the third month of the siege and kept Augustine confined to bed.

Ten days behind a closed door

Possidius says the sheets of penitential psalms were hung within reading distance of the bed; Augustine read them and wept.

For roughly his final ten days he admitted only physicians and the attendants bringing food, leaving himself uninterrupted for prayer. Possidius and others stood beside him praying when he died.

The siege outlasted him

A funeral service followed and he was buried while the blockade continued. Possidius says it ultimately lasted almost fourteen months, and Hippo was abandoned and burned only later.

Augustine left no personal will. He had repeatedly directed that Hippo's church library and its books be preserved.

He was 75 years and 9 months old by modern reckoning; ancient sources describe the same span as his seventy-sixth year.

589: the Yangtze crossed at several points

A coordinated Sui invasion crossed the Yangtze at several points in 589 and converged on the Chen capital, Jiankang, in modern Nanjing.

After limited fighting at the northern gate, a Chen general opened the principal southern gate to the Sui forces.

Chen Shubao in the well

The last Chen ruler, Chen Shubao, was discovered hiding in a dry well with two favored consorts and taken prisoner.

With him captured, Chen governors along the Yangtze began surrendering; thirty prefectures, a hundred commanderies and four hundred counties passed into Sui hands.

Chen Shubao was not killed at the fall of his capital. He was carried north and lived until 604.

The emperor who stayed north

Yang Jian — Emperor Wen — ordered and prepared the conquest but did not go. His son Yang Guang, Prince of Jin, was nominal commander of the main army, with Gao Jiong helping direct it.

Upstream, Yang Su's several thousand vessels, called "Yellow Dragons," defeated the Chen river defenses and prevented an effective coordinated defense of the capital.

Taking Jiankang did not settle the south: the city was ordered demolished afterward, the Chen elite was moved north, and resistance continued in coastal and southern districts.

The target that got away

The battle at Badr is traditionally dated to 17 Ramadan 2 AH, conventionally converted to 13 March 624. Muhammad’s expedition had set out from Medina to intercept Abu Sufyan’s lightly guarded Quraysh caravan; Abu Sufyan diverted it onto a coastal route and summoned help from Mecca.

The caravan escaped. Muhammad’s roughly 300 followers — traditional reports give 305 men physically present, with 70 camels and two horses between them, so riders shared mounts — instead met a separate Quraysh army of about 1,000 at Badr, some 160 km southwest of Medina.

The wells, then the fighting

In the traditional account Muhammad reached the wells first, kept the nearest one and had the others filled with sand on Hubab ibn al-Mundhir’s advice — then allowed the Meccans to draw from the one left open.

Single combats involving Hamza, Ali and Ubayda ibn al-Harith preceded the general fighting, which ended by late afternoon in a Muslim victory. Abu Jahl was among the Quraysh leaders killed; traditional counts give 14 Muslims dead, 70 Quraysh dead and 70 captured.

What the sources can carry

The Quraysh survivors withdrew toward Mecca while Muhammad’s force held the field, buried the dead and took prisoners and booty.

Seventeenth Ramadan is only the best-known of the traditional dates: the TDV encyclopedia also records traditions naming 19, 21 or 27 Ramadan.

Modern source criticism finds the broad outline stronger than many of the picturesque details, particularly those covering the approach and the night before the battle.

What the early account says

Al-Baladhuri’s conquest narrative says Abu Ubayda marched from Aleppo toward Antioch — an event modern reference works place in 637 or 637–638 — and met the city’s defenders at Mahruya, about two parasangs outside. He dispersed them and forced them back inside the city.

A large body from the province of Qinnasrin had fortified itself in Antioch. Its more precise composition is not established.

Terms at the gates

Abu Ubayda then invested Antioch’s gates, most of his army concentrating at two named ones, Bab Faris and Bab al-Bahr.

The city capitulated on terms allowing inhabitants either to leave or to remain under a guarantee of safety and an assessment of one dinar and one jarib of wheat on each remaining adult.

The battle that grew in the telling

The consulted early account does not call this encounter the Battle of the Iron Bridge. It does not mention Khalid ibn al-Walid, an iron-trimmed bridge, the Orontes, Christian Arab auxiliaries, or the tactics found in popular retellings.

The nine arches, the iron-bladed gates, the alleged bridge’s exact location on the Orontes, the army composition and the casualty rankings are all absent as well. A Crusader-period bridge called Jisr al-Hadid is well known near Antioch, but that does not independently verify seventh-century architectural details.

Al-Baladhuri also wrote roughly two centuries after the conquest and preserves variant reports, so even his narrative is not an eyewitness record.

Probably 638, and probably not April

Modern archaeological scholarship places Jerusalem’s apparently peaceful surrender to Muslim forces in 638. The date is disputed among 636/637, 637 and 638, academic treatments generally prefer 638, and no reliable evidence fixes the surrender in April.

Neither a six-month siege nor a 20,000-man army is securely established by the sources consulted. Baladhuri himself dates the capitulation variously to AH 16 or 17.

Who negotiated, and on what terms

Baladhuri’s principal account says Amr ibn al-As was besieging Jerusalem, that Abu Ubayda later joined him, and that the inhabitants requested capitulation on condition that Caliph Umar personally confirm the terms. Umar came via al-Jabiya and issued a written settlement.

A transmitted version of his assurance protects the inhabitants, their property, their churches and their crosses, and rejects religious compulsion, while requiring payment of tribute. Baladhuri also preserves an alternative account in which Khalid ibn Thabit arranged the capitulation.

The famous scene is a late one

The story that Umar refused to pray inside the Holy Sepulchre in order to protect it comes from the Christian historian Eutychius, roughly two and a half centuries later, not from a contemporary witness. Sophronius, prominent in later Christian accounts, is not named in the earliest Muslim capitulation narrative.

Different versions of Umar’s Assurance survive, disagreeing about wording, witnesses and the status of Jewish settlement. A later Jewish chronicle says Christians and Jews bargained before Umar over whether 50, 70 or 200 Jewish households could resettle in the city.

Not Sa‘d’s battle

By 21 AH/642, Yazdegerd III had assembled a major Sasanian force at Nahavand to block further Muslim advances from Iraq and possibly recover lost territory. Caliph Umar combined forces from Kufa and Basra under al-Nu‘man ibn Muqarrin, reinforced them from Syria and Oman, and sent them against the concentration.

Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas did not command there — the consulted sources identify al-Nu‘man. Umar himself was not on the battlefield.

A victory whose shape is lost

The battle ended in a Rashidun victory, but modern scholarship says its tactical course is difficult to reconstruct; late accounts variously attribute the outcome to a ruse or to the arrival of reinforcements. The famous feigned retreat into a narrow valley is one such late narrative.

Al-Nu‘man was killed. Encyclopaedia Iranica names the fallen Persian general as Mardanshah son of Hormoz rather than securely identifying him as Firuzan, and later narratives give conflicting names and titles for the Persian command.

What it settled, and what it did not

After the field victory, Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman assumed command and accepted Nahavand’s surrender on tribute-and-protection terms. Concerted resistance in the Jibal was broken, though local resistance continued and places including Hamadan and Ray had to be taken or retaken.

The date is unsettled: Arabic sources place the battle in 19, 20 or 21 AH, producing modern dates from about 640 to 642, with Encyclopaedia Iranica’s conquest survey favouring summer 642.

Late sources also report dramatically different army totals, and no troop-strength or casualty figure is secure.

Summer 656, in Medina

In the summer of 656, malcontents from the Egyptian garrison town of Fustat killed Caliph Uthman in Medina. That regicide conventionally opens the First Fitna.

The decisive event did not occur in Egypt: rebels from Egypt and Iraq had traveled to Medina, where Uthman was killed.

They were not a handful of sympathizers but organized provincial dissidents — soldiers from a garrison town founded during the conquests.

Who did it is contested

Provincial opposition, Egyptian above all, converged with opposition inside Medina. The relationship between the two groups, and responsibility for the killing, remain contested in the sources.

Early Muslim narratives disagree over the individual assailants, over the disputed letter that caused the Egyptians to turn back, and over how far prominent Medinans were complicit.

Later Sunni, Shia, Kharijite and Umayyad political memories shaped the accounts that survive.

A caliph with an unpayable debt

Ali assumed the caliphate after the murder, but the succession came with unresolved demands that the killers be punished — killers entangled with the armed factions present in the capital.

Within days the caliphate had a new leader and no accepted settlement of the killing that had put him in office. Armed opposition followed.

The First Fitna created a hiatus in further Muslim advances on at least the eastern frontier.