Famous fat people in history

[Traitorfish]

Ivar the Boneless

He was fat? I thought his nickname was a reference to his unusual litheness and agility.

 

[Caseyboy97]

In his later years He got pretty chubby.

 

[Fat Old Buzzard]

I've not got my glasses w/me, so I couldn't read all of the posts; the words got blurry. But I did see that someone mentioned Queen Victoria - well, she was plump in her old age, but what about her son, King Edward VII? King Edward was famously fat.

 

[Domen]

Gustavus II Adolphus. It a famous line in one of the defining Swedish national histories, about the king in time becoming "reasonably fat". But then again, it was the 17th c. so fat was the thing to be. King Charles X on Sweden was a hefty guy as well

His greatest adversary on the battlefield - Stanislaw Koniecpolski - was also fat:

Spoiler :

Boleslaw Chrobry, one of the most celebre polish rulers (he conquered Lusatia up to Elbe river; Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, and also captured Kiev etc) was fat, apparently. You can not seen it on the - much later - images of his, but I recall part of a chronicle that mentioned that while a polish army was on one side of a river, and the ruthenian on another, one Ruthenian used to mock Boleslaw for being fat. Boleslaw got angry and suddenly made a charge through the river, followed by his soldiers, and won the battle. So he probably was heavy.

It was Russian / Ruthenian chronicle written by Nestor - here is this particular fragment:

"(...) Year 6526 [1018]. Came Boleslaus with Sviatopolk against Yaroslav, with Lachy [Lachy - old Russian term for Poles]. And Yaroslav, after gathering Rus and Varangians, and Slavons, went against Boleslaus and Sviatopolk, and arrived at the stronghold of Volhynia, and both armies stood on both sides of the Bug river. And Yaroslav had a guardian and voivode named Budy, who started to abuse Boleslaus, saying: "Here we will pierce your fat stomach with a javelin". Because Boleslaus was large and heavy, so that he could barely sit on horseback, but he was wise. And Boleslaus said to his druzhina: "If you do not feel insulted, then I will fall alone". And bestriding his horse he entered the river, and his army followed. And Yaroslav did not manage to deploy his forces, and Boleslaus defeated Yaroslav. And Yaroslav escaped with four men to Novgorod. And Boleslaus captured Kiev with Sviatopolk. (...)"

But remember that in 1018 Boleslaw / Boleslaus was already 51 years old (he was born in 967).

And Polish chronicler Gallus Anonymus also confirms what Nestor writes. He writes that before that battle Yaroslav himself said:

"Let Boleslaus know, that as a hog from a puddle he is surrounded by my dogs and hunters."

And Boleslaus replied:

"Well, indeed, you called me a hog in a puddle, because in the blood of your hunters and dogs, that is dukes and knights, I will dip the hooves of my horses, and your land and towns I will ravage like a hog ravages a field."

 

[vogtmurr]

Interesting story. Curious; by what reckoning did they assign year 6526 to 1018 AD ?

 

[Usteros]

Famous Russian fable writer Ivan Krylov was very fat too.

 

[Domen]

Interesting story. Curious; by what reckoning did they assign year 6526 to 1018 AD ?

Nestor was using the Byzantine Calendar (which counted years since the creation of the world - Anno Mundi - that's why year 6526):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Mundi#Adoption_of_Byzantine_era

However, there is some confusion with dates in Nestor's chronicle, so I guess that 1018 is just what other sources say.

Here is what Polish wikipedia says about confusion with chronology in Nestor's chronicle (Google translation):

The author chronicles uses the Byzantine calendar. At the same time before discussing the recall Rurik, provide the calculation of time elapsed between significant historical events in his opinion: From Adam to the flood 2242 years, from the Flood to Abraham ... "and so on until the reign of Michael III. These calculations include a number of errors, the explanation of which is significant to determine the actual dates of the events of the early history of Rus', described by the Chronicle. As the primary author mentions 6360 years (or 852). This is to be the year in which he reign Emperor Michael III. In fact, Michael III ascended the throne 10 years earlier (coronation) or 4 years later (and a palace coup overthrowing the emperor's mother - Theodora). On the other hand, from the Birth of Christ to Constantine passed by Nestor 318 years, and to Michael Constantine - 542 years, which would give the 860th years This year also suggests a second appears under the date the information has been called this country the land Ruthenian. In turn we learned from this that the emperor came to Rus, in Constantinople. Although the information is not entirely clear (do not know if Russ had come to the Byzantines in the year or only during the reign of the Emperor), but this fits the invasion Rusów otherwise known at Constantinople in 860 years. However, it is the intruding describes Nestor later, under the year 6374 (or 866). Again, from Michael to Oleg had to pass 29 years, which would give 6389 years (or 881), and not - as he continues - 6387 (879). After counting all the steps mentioned by Nestor from the creation of the world to the beginning of the reign of Michael comes out not as he gives 6360, but 6313 years. For these reasons, scientists are wary of the early dates in the chronicle.

 

[vogtmurr]

Nestor was using the Byzantine Calendar (which counted years since the creation of the world - Anno Mundi - that's why year 6526):

yes I suspected so - but I read that a literal interpretation of biblical chronology places the origin of the world at first sunday, 4004 BC. So I assume there is some discrepancy or controversy in reckoning to account for the missing 1504 years.

 

[Tee Kay]

Mao Zedong was quick chubby in his later years.

 

[aronnax]

Mao Zedong was quick chubby in his later years.

He became much skinnier when he met Nixon though.

 

[W|M]

João VI of Portugal was known to be very fat.

 

[Leifmk]

On the Viking side, this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_II_of_Norway was basically known as "Olaf the Fat" in his lifetime. Before he became all dead and sainted and stuff. And this other guy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gångerolf got his epithet from being too heavy to ride a horse.

 

[Plotinus]

yes I suspected so - but I read that a literal interpretation of biblical chronology places the origin of the world at first sunday, 4004 BC. So I assume there is some discrepancy or controversy in reckoning to account for the missing 1504 years.

No, the commonly-cited date of 4004 BC is simply the one that James Ussher worked out in the seventeenth century. It is famous because, although many other dates were proposed for the creation, Ussher calculated a detailed chronology for all biblical (and non-biblical) events, which was printed in many Bibles in the eighteenth century, and so his dates became very widely known and, in many quarters, unquestioningly accepted.

In fact the common belief that the 4004 BC date can be determined just by adding up people's ages in the Bible and working back in a fairly mechanical way is not true. Even if one assumes (as Ussher and others like him did) that all the information in the Bible is completely true and accurate, it does not give you nearly enough to work out dates as precisely as this. Ussher and other biblical chronologists had to do a great deal of work sifting through various historical sources, including but not limited to the Bible, in order to produce their chronologies. This is why biblical literalists have produced all kinds of dates for the creation of the world.

 

[Dreadnought]

IIRC, Henry VIII gained so much weight due to a riding accident that nearly crippled him.

 

[vogtmurr]

No, the commonly-cited date of 4004 BC is simply the one that James Ussher worked out in the seventeenth century. It is famous because, although many other dates were proposed for the creation, Ussher calculated a detailed chronology for all biblical (and non-biblical) events, which was printed in many Bibles in the eighteenth century, and so his dates became very widely known and, in many quarters, unquestioningly accepted.

In fact the common belief that the 4004 BC date can be determined just by adding up people's ages in the Bible and working back in a fairly mechanical way is not true. Even if one assumes (as Ussher and others like him did) that all the information in the Bible is completely true and accurate, it does not give you nearly enough to work out dates as precisely as this. Ussher and other biblical chronologists had to do a great deal of work sifting through various historical sources, including but not limited to the Bible, in order to produce their chronologies. This is why biblical literalists have produced all kinds of dates for the creation of the world.

I see. So I wonder how the Byzantines came up with 5508 BC. It nearly corresponds to the postulated great flood events - but that supposedly, is a few thousand years after Adam and Eve. Its just idle interest - to see if there is a trend or pattern in these origin myths that might correspond to a world shaping event.

 

[sydhe]

No, the commonly-cited date of 4004 BC is simply the one that James Ussher worked out in the seventeenth century. It is famous because, although many other dates were proposed for the creation, Ussher calculated a detailed chronology for all biblical (and non-biblical) events, which was printed in many Bibles in the eighteenth century, and so his dates became very widely known and, in many quarters, unquestioningly accepted.

In fact the common belief that the 4004 BC date can be determined just by adding up people's ages in the Bible and working back in a fairly mechanical way is not true. Even if one assumes (as Ussher and others like him did) that all the information in the Bible is completely true and accurate, it does not give you nearly enough to work out dates as precisely as this. Ussher and other biblical chronologists had to do a great deal of work sifting through various historical sources, including but not limited to the Bible, in order to produce their chronologies. This is why biblical literalists have produced all kinds of dates for the creation of the world.

The way I've read it, Ussher chose 4004 BC because it was exactly four millennia before a widely accepted date for the birth of Christ, October 23 was at or near the autumnal equinox (in the Julian calendar) and the time of day was sunset in Jerusalem on October 22. The autumnal equinox and sunset were chosen because of the Jewish calendar.

 

[LightSpectra]

He actually picked the four-thousand year date because it fit contemporary scientific consensus.

 

[Plotinus]

On vogtmurr's question about the 1,500-year discrepancy, I would guess that that is because of differences between the Hebrew Old Testament and the Septuagint. The Septuagint gives greater ages for figures in the Pentateuch, with a total discrepancy of about 1,500 years, so if one uses the Septuagint to work out the date of creation it will result in a date of about 1,500 years earlier.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Gustavus II Adolphus. It a famous line in one of the defining Swedish national histories, about the king in time becoming "reasonably fat". But then again, it was the 17th c. so fat was the thing to be. King Charles X on Sweden was a hefty guy as well

Spoiler :

I find this hilarious, because he is so remembered for the incredible mobility of his army on the battlefield.

 

[Dachs]

In spite of his weight, he still fought with his cavalry in most of his engagements - hell, that's how he died. It clearly wasn't much of an impediment.