Heh. Excellent catch :D. I assume because he was a central figure in Roman history and so that common name has come down through Latin ( Roman ) sources and was transliterated. But I do distinctly remembering that “the Great” was a self-assumed honorific as was indeed common for his dynasty.
By the way - Aramaic and Persian ( and many other ) languages, but no Egyptian. He was a Seleucid, not a Lagid :).
More obscure Norse kings in the British Isles had even better names. Between 920-927 York was ruled by a chap called Sigtrygg Caech the Squinty.
Ah, here we go - Antiochus III Megas. Google on both and you’ll get hits for the same guy.
A lot of times those nicknames helped distinguish between various individuals with the same name, as has already been noted in regard to Alexander and St. James. Several good examples can be found in the Medici of Renaissance Florence. Several of them had the same name–lots of Cosimos, Lorenzos, Pieros, etc. So you had to call them by nicknames to tell them apart. Thus, you have “Cosimo the Elder” and “Lorenzo the Magnificent” (that’s a nice one–“il Magnifico”!).
Lorenzo the Magnificent had a father named Piero, and a son named Piero. To distinguish between them, we call the elder Piero “Piero the Gouty” (which has to be one of my all-time favorite names). We call Lorenzo’s son “Piero the Unlucky” (he’s the one who got kicked out of Florence by Charles VIII–such a non-descriptive name!–of France, leaving behind a power vaccuum that got filled by Savonarola).
A colorful bunch, those Medici.
A comment on Antiochus III after his return from his Anabasis in 205:
Footnote to above: 67. As Will points out, the title did not figure in official royal documents, or on coins, but solely in honorific decrees and private dedications.
From pg. 296 and 807 ( footnote ) of Alexander to Actium:The Historic Evolution of the Hellenistic Age by Peter Green ( 1990, University of California Press ).
I was in error on the coin bit for Antiochus III, it was actually his son, the aforementioned Antiochus IV, who had his honorific placed on his coins.
William the Conqueror was probably so keen on invading England to get rid of his then current soubriqet, ‘the Bastard’.
Tamerlane:
You say “By the way - Aramaic and Persian ( and many other ) languages, but no Egyptian.” Are you implying that there was a language called “Persian” during the time of Antiochus III? My understanding is that Aramaic was the official language of most of the Persian Empire during this time. Not to nit-pick, and I certainly could be wrong. Please correct me if I am.
Yep. Transitioning from Old to Middle Persian, spoken mostly in Fars ( Persis ). Other related Indo-Iranian languages spoken in the Seleucid state included Avestan, Median, Sogdian, Chorasmian, and Bactrian - Probably all mutually intelligible to some extent, I think I remember reading ( Jomo Mojo could probably say for sure ).
No, your nitpick is quite correct and perfectly proper :). It’s just not the whole story. As the language of the economic hub of the region, Mesopotamia/Babylonia and Syria, Aramaic was the accepted empire-wide lingua franca under the Achaemenids, the Seleucids, and the Parthians. It is only with the Sassanians that it was gradually supplanted by Persian ( Middle Persian in this case ).
However Persian ( and all of the above languages, plus others including Greek ), though not dominant except regionally, was still one of the languages of the empire.
Non descriptive name? Charles VIII l’affable (“the well-behaved”)?
I stand corrected–I didn’t realize Charles VIII had a nickname, and was just kidding about his name only having a number instead. Thanks for alerting me to that.
(Although I contend that “affable” isn’t nearly as descriptive as “gouty.”)