The Roman Empire was a vast political organization that extended across Europe and into parts of Asia and Africa. Growing out of the Italian city of Rome, the fall of the Roman Empire is often dated to 476 CE, when the emperor in Rome, Romulus Augustulus, was ousted from power. However, at this time, the unwieldy Empire had already been split into two parts: the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. While the fall of Rome marked the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire continued to thrive for another millennium, during which time it was often referred to as the Byzantine Empire. This is the story of the Eastern Roman Empire.   Birth of the Roman Empire Capitoline Wolf Suckling Romulus and Remus, unknown, c. 16th century. Source: National Gallery of Art, Washington   According to myth, Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus in 753 BCE. Whether this story was history or legend, Rome began its life as a small village on the Tiber River in central Italy, no different than any number of other settlements in the region. Over the next few centuries, Rome’s warlike ways led to the expansion of Roman territory. At the height of Rome’s power, it controlled vast territories that stretched from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to what is now Iraq in the east. Expansion more or less ceased after the campaigns of Trajan at the beginning of the 2nd century CE, and his successor, Hadrian, consolidated Roman holdings.   Nevertheless, during the 3rd century CE, a crisis would strike as Rome saw a revolving door of emperors who ascended to the imperial throne through near constant civil wars. This chronic instability tore the empire apart, causing massive damage to Rome’s economy, military, and social structures. In 293, the emperor Diocletian implemented a new solution. Rather than one man attempting to run the massive empire, he split it into the western and eastern halves. Each was ruled over by an “Augustus,” with a subordinate “Caesar” as helper and heir apparent. Called the Tetrarchy, this solution worked for a while.   A New Eastern Capital & the Fall of Rome Coin featuring Constantine and Sol Invictus, 316 CE. Source: British Museum   Political backstabbing and maneuvering caused the system to collapse, too, and soon the Empire was plunged into more civil wars. At the beginning of the 4th century, Constantine the Great managed to wrest control of both halves of the empire from his rivals, cementing himself as the sole ruler. Rather than stay in Rome, he moved east and established a new capital on the Bosporus at a town called Byzantium, renaming it Constantinople.   After more civil wars, economic crises, and barbarian invasions, both the eastern and western halves of the empire continued to drift apart politically and culturally. In 395, the emperor Theodosius I died. His sons, Arcadius and Honorius, each inherited the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire, respectively. Though they had already been divided for administrative purposes, they were now separate politically.   By this point, the Western Roman Empire was in decline due to relentless waves of barbarian invasions. They were forced to abandon Britain, and other bits of the empire were chewed off by migrations of Vandals, Goths, Huns, Alans, and other tribes. It became less and less powerful and relied heavily on mercenaries from these very barbarians to stay alive. In 476, the last Western Roman Emperor was forced from power by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain, marking the end of the line of emperors that stretched back to Rome’s first emperor, Augustus, and is considered a pivotal moment in the decline of the Roman Empire.   Eastern Advantages Reconstruction of Constantinople in the year 1200. Source: Vivid Maps   As the Western Roman Empire was crumbling, the Eastern half was able to survive, with Constantinople becoming the undisputed center of the Roman world. Unlike the West, the East had many advantages that made it more robust and able to deal with the tumultuous 5th century. Even at the height of its power, the richest Roman provinces were in the east, such as Syria. Egypt was the breadbasket of the Empire and was crucial for sustaining Rome’s urban population. When they split, the Western half lost these wealthy provinces and their tax revenues. Without that wealth, the West could not afford to pay armies or maintain its infrastructure.   The Eastern Roman Empire was also protected by geography. To the east, the Sassanids were always a threat, but could be kept in check, and the Sahara desert kept the south of the empire safe from large-scale invasions. In the heartland, the Dardanelles and the Bosporus Straits were natural choke points that made defending Constantinople much easier than defending Rome. When the West was being invaded by hordes of barbarians, the East was, for the most part, left alone. There were some incursions, but these were on a much smaller scale, and the government of the Eastern Empire was better suited to defend its territories. Rather than having the emperor deploy from crisis point to crisis point, he would generally stay in Constantinople and delegate generals to fight off threats, while he focused on overall administration.   The East’s wealthy provinces, more efficient government, and less threatened position meant that it was able to survive the turmoil of the 5th century. If invaded, it could gather enough troops to repel them, pay its soldiers without causing an economic crisis, or, if the situation called for it, simply pay the barbarians to go elsewhere.   The Eastern Empire Strikes Back Electrotype coin of Justinian I, minted in Anatolia, c. 527-565 CE. Source: British Museum   In 527, the emperor Justinian I ascended to the imperial throne. During his long reign, he instituted numerous reforms, including the codification and overhaul of the legal system. Many of the old laws were sporadic and unevenly enforced, so Justinian streamlined the Roman laws into a single unified system. He also embarked on a massive public works program, which included the largest church at the time, the Hagia Sophia. He also reorganized the government and administration for more efficiency. While Justinian was an innovator, his focus on laws, building, and administration was very much in line with the tradition of the Roman Empire.   The Eastern Roman Empire at the death of Emperor Justinian I. Source: Britannica   There was one policy in particular that directly connected the Eastern Roman Empire with ancient Rome. Rather than simply accept the loss of the Western Empire, Justinian, along with highly capable generals such as Belisarius, began a reconquest of the West. After securing peace with the Sassanids in 532, the eastern border was secure, and he could turn his attention to the west. The next year, Belisarius invaded and successfully captured Carthage in North Africa, driving out the Vandals. In 534, he landed and recaptured Sicily from the Ostrogoths. He then reconquered Italy, including Rome itself, as well as parts of Spain. While far from regaining all of the territory of the Western Roman Empire, Justinian managed to reclaim a significant chunk of former Roman territory. Due to several factors, these lands would be lost over the next few centuries, but for a brief moment in time, the empire regained some of its glory.   The Crusades & Decline of the East The Siege of Constantinople, depicted on the external wall of Moldoviţa monastery, 1537. Source: istock   For nearly a millennium, the Eastern Roman Empire endured ups and downs. They repelled invasions from Persia and Bulgaria and raids by Vikings and the Rus. Their greatest challenge, however, would come from Arabia. After the birth of Islam in the 7th century CE, the Eastern Roman Empire would continually lose ground to Arab armies. The worst defeat occurred in 1071 at Manzikert, which saw the Byzantines lose control of Anatolia.   The Eastern Empire turned to the Pope in the West. Despite religious differences, the Catholic West formed a crusade to support the Orthodox East to drive back the Islamic incursions. Unfortunately for the Empire, this would also prove their downfall. In 1204, the Fourth Crusade was poorly led and financed, and the crusading army went rogue, and did the unthinkable: it captured Constantinople. The city was retaken in 1261, but it was never the same, limping on until the deathblow came in 1453 when the Ottoman Empire captured the city, finally ending the Roman Empire.   Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire? Gilt Plaque of St. Theodore, Byzantine, c. 11th century CE. Source: British Museum   Although the Eastern Roman Empire was Roman in every way, it causes some confusion among casual readers of history. The centerpiece of the Roman Empire, the city of Rome, was outside of its control for most of its history. Additionally, the Empire is often referred to as the Byzantine Empire, rather than the Eastern Roman Empire. And finally, when asked the question “when did Rome fall?” almost everyone, from serious scholars to internet search engines, responds 476.   The term Byzantine Empire was only applied to the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of Constantinople. Western historians referred to it as such, and it soon entered the common lexicon and remains in use even today. The citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire simply referred to themselves as Romans. The term “Byzantine” would probably have meant nothing to them and would have simply reminded some of the more educated members of society of the original name of Constantinople. Every major government institution shared a continuity with the Empire of Augustus, and although it was reformed and evolved over the years due to changing circumstances, it remained the same empire. When Ottoman sultan Mehmed II captured Constantinople, he declared himself Kayser-i Rum, “Caesar of Rome.” The Eastern Romans spoke primarily Greek instead of Latin and labeled their institutions that way, but this was a superficial change.   Dardanelles Gun, of the same type used against Constantinople, 1453. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When Constantinople fell to Ottoman cannons, the last vestige of the Roman empire fell, absorbed by a much more powerful nation in an ever-changing world. When the city fell, the continuity from the small village on the Tiber was finally broken.

  In 1662, Catherine of Braganza married King Charles II of England, renewing and cementing a deep connection between Portugal and England that has lasted to this day. The reason for this marriage was a high-stakes gamble of geopolitical and financial considerations. England needed gold and ports to rebuild its economy, while the Portuguese sought protection through England’s significant military.   The political necessities of this union are no longer relevant today, but the legacies it left are apparent today. One of these legacies was in a small wooden box—Catherine’s personal supply of tea, or chá!   Catherine of Braganza and Her Political Duty Catherine of Braganza by Peter Lely, ca. 1664. Source: The Royal Collection/Wikimedia Commons   Catherine was born in 1638 on the cusp of revolution, as Portugal threw off the yoke of the Iberian Union and sought to restore facets of independence it had lost to Spain. Her father became John IV of Portugal in 1640 and spent the rest of his life at war with Spain (he died in 1656, and the war lasted until 1668).   Portugal was in need of allies, and Catherine was a powerful way to achieve this. Her mother, Luisa de Guzmán, was the main architect of securing an alliance with England through Catherine, and the marriage to Charles II took place in 1662. As part of the deal, England promised to support Portugal’s claim to independence, and in return, England gained Bombay and Tangiers as well as access to Brazil and the East Indies. Charles also received a large cash payment, although this was never paid in full.   A Marital Disaster Catherine of Braganza and Charles II, by an unknown painter, ca. 1665. Source: Christie’s/Wikimedia Commons   First impressions in England were not good. Catherine was Catholic, a factor that had led to much opposition to the marriage. Because of her religion, she also could not be officially crowned in an Anglican ceremony.   Like many women of noble birth in Portugal, Catherine was raised in a convent and spent much time secluded from the outside world. She grew to be pious, but with a gentle and trusting nature. Her fashion sense of dark clothes was in stark contrast to the flowing Parisienne styles that were popular in the English court, and her reserved nature did not seem at home amongst the more promiscuous sensibilities of the time. To add to this dynamic, she had taken ill and was consigned to her bed for the first week of her marriage. On the night of her wedding, the marriage was not consummated.   As was common with arranged political marriages, neither party had much interest in the other’s views beforehand, and the marriage was not one where Catherine was given reason to warm to her husband (although there was a certain amount of love that seemed to develop over time). She held bitterness, later claiming she had been sold to England. Indeed, when she had arrived in England, Charles’ brother, James, Duke of York, had been the one to greet her, while Charles, stating he had had parliamentary duties, was likely enjoying his last unmarried moments with his pregnant mistress, Barbara Palmer.   Barbara Palmer (née Villiers) was a married woman, and despite officially separating from her in 1662, Roger Palmer was ridiculed as being “Europe’s most famous cuckold.”   Barbara Palmer, née Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland with her son, Charles Fitzroy, as Madonna and Child by Peter Lely, ca. 1664. Source: National Portrait Gallery/Wikimedia Commons   Catherine and Charles were civil towards each other at first, but what little attempt had been made to create a happy marriage during their honeymoon at Hampton Court Palace was intruded upon by Barbara Palmer, who insisted on being there for the birth of her son. The king allowed it. Not only was this an obvious affront to Catherine, but Palmer was made Lady of the Bedchamber, the new Queen’s personal attendant. When this was publicly announced, tears welled in Catherine’s eyes. She then suffered a nosebleed and promptly fainted.   It can be stated in no uncertain terms that the Queen’s life was not a particularly happy one when it came to her relationship with Charles. And the king had made it abundantly clear that he preferred the company of Barbara Palmer to that of his wife. Catherine spent much time in her room, where she found solace in the contents of a box she had brought from Portugal. A box containing tea, an extremely valuable and rare commodity in Europe at the time.   The Importance of Tea Dried tea leaves. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Catherine was sidelined, and over the coming years, she had at least three miscarriages, bearing the king no children, while Charles acknowledged 12 (or 13, possibly even 14—accounts vary) illegitimate children with his multiple mistresses, giving each of them land and a title. Palmer bore at least four children from their affair.   Despite calls for divorce, Charles remained married, while Catherine remained humiliated. She did, however, entertain guests and introduced the ladies of the court to the habit of drinking tea.   Markman Ellis, Richard Coulton and Matthew Mauger, in their book Empire of Tea: The Asian Leaf that Conquered the World, state that the popularity of tea in England was not due to a single source, but rather the convergence of virtuosi (scientists, doctors and philosophers), merchants, and elite female aristocrats, who provided a foundation for the tea market and the custom of tea drinking in England. The rise of tea, however, is a topic of considerable debate amongst scholars. It is also argued that tea only became popular with the introduction of sugar. Records mark the rise of tea, but the influences on its popularity continue to be discussed.   Woman Drinking Tea by Bernard Lens II (1659-1725). Source: Yale Center for British Art/Wikimedia Commons   While tea was gaining a reputation as a medicinal drink, Catherine of Braganza was instrumental in popularizing it amongst aristocratic circles. Where the novelty of tea had been associated with medical purposes, Catherine introduced the custom of drinking it as a pleasant beverage. Drinking tea as a pastime became extremely popular amongst the ladies of the court, and as it was a commodity of great value, boxes of it were proudly displayed to impress guests. It offered a pleasant, non-alcoholic way to socialize.   The popularity of this phenomenon was greatly aided by Edmund Waller, the court poet, who published the poem, “Of Tea, Commended by Her Majesty,” publicly endorsing the queen for introducing the “best of herbs.” Thus, tea went from one woman’s way to cope with a terrible set of affairs to being a significant public fashion.   As tea-drinking spread throughout the kingdom, so too did the culture that surrounded it. Teapots, cups, and saucers found their way into English culture, and over the decades and centuries, became staple items in virtually every British home, while in the 18th century, chinoiserie, or Chinese-inspired European art, became popular. This was all triggered, in part, by Catherine of Braganza and her box of tea.   A Respectable Queen Catherine of Braganza’s coat of arms. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Catherine grew to have her own independence, which was not challenged by Charles II. She had a loyal household around her, and she lived with the security she needed, entertaining her own guests without the interference of her wayward husband, although his mistresses sometimes caused a bit of drama. Through those close to her, she accrued respect, affection, and dignity. She took to the duties, presiding over the queen’s circle, a daily gathering in the royal court, which became a most popular and well-attended event. She was praised for her good nature and her morality.   Charles II by John Michael Wright, ca. early 1660s. Source: National Portrait Gallery/Wikimedia Commons   Catherine and Charles, however, did not hate each other. In February 1685, Charles lay dying from an apoplectic fit brought on by kidney dysfunction, possibly the result of mercury poisoning (he had a laboratory where he experimented with the substance). The man was subsequently subjected to torturous treatments that may have exacerbated his condition. Upon visiting her husband on his deathbed, Catherine found his suffering to be difficult to bear. She supposedly rubbed his feet (although this cannot be verified with any certainty), attempting to warm them, before being helped out of the room in great distress. Upon not being able to be by his side for grief, and with his death imminent, she sent him a message asking for his forgiveness if she had offended him in all her life. Charles responded, “Alas poor woman! she asks for my pardon? I beg hers with all my heart; take her back that answer.”   Moments before his death, he is said to have converted to Catholicism, a move that was likely to have given Catherine at least some sense of ease in her difficult position.   Despite his obvious sexual liaisons, the king had respect for his wife in a certain way and refused to divorce or separate from her, maintaining that she could not do anything wicked and that abandonment would be a horrible thing to do to her. He defended her in public and took little interest in listening to lies spread about her supposed efforts to poison him—a notorious lie which was part of a plot to kill the king, which would have resulted in a restoration of a Catholic monarchy. The chief fabricator, Titus Oates, was arrested and indicted.   The Last Years Statue of Catherine of Braganza in Lisbon. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In the aftermath of Charles’ death, Catherine became a dowager queen and had to remain in England. As a Catholic in a Protestant court, she felt increasingly isolated and longed to return to Portugal. Meanwhile, Charles II’s brother, James, had ascended the throne and was a harsh ruler and widely unpopular. Catherine eventually returned to Portugal in 1692, where her brother, Pedro II, was king.   In 1704, Pedro made Catherine regent. She died from an attack of colic on December 31, 1705, at the age of 67. She was entombed in the Jeronimite Church in Lisbon, and later, her remains were moved to the Church of Saint Vincent of Fora, where they rest in the pantheon of the House of Braganza.   Catherine’s Legacy A cup of tea (prepared in the British manner). Source: Wikimedia Commons   In Britain, the impartation of terrible news is generally followed by the listener saying, “I’ll put the kettle on.” Thus, it is certainly fitting that this comforting gesture can be associated with Catherine of Braganza.   Her marriage was a political purchase that benefited both Portugal and England when both countries were in dire need of what the other could offer, and her life thereafter was full of disappointment and sadness. Her most enduring legacy, however, was not in geopolitical gains (or losses), but in the culture of England, which owes a considerable debt to her tea-drinking habits. Catherine played a significant part in shaping English society, as a catalyst for a 400-year-old tradition of relaxing with a “cuppa.”

Robert Ressler devoted his life to hunting vicious killers. And when he joined the FBI in 1970, investigators did not have a name for criminals like the Ypsilanti Ripper and the Zodiac Killer who claimed multiple victims — until Ressler came up with the term “serial killer.” But more than that, Ressler helped create the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit and became the bureau’s very first serial killer profiler. For years, he interviewed America’s worst offenders to establish categories for identifying and tracking serial killers in the hope of catching them. At a time when no one had yet thought of interviewing killers directly before, Ressler’s profiles helped the FBI track down notorious criminals in the 1970s and 1980s. And though Ressler retired in the 1990s and died in 2013, he lives on to this day as the inspiration for the character of Bill Tench on Netflix’s Mindhunter. Why Robert Ressler Joined The FBI Born on February 21, 1937, Robert Kenneth Ressler joined the U.S. Army in the years after World War II and served at postings around the world. He later worked as a criminal investigation officer in Washington, D.C. Fascinated by criminology, Ressler earned a master’s degree at Michigan State University. NetflixIn the Netflix series Mindhunter, the character of Bill Tench drew inspiration from Robert Ressler’s life. He joined the FBI in 1970 and was recruited into the newly formed Behavioral Science Unit two years later. As crime rates skyrocketed, FBI agents wondered if there was a better way to catch killers. The new recruit approached the killers from an analytical perspective. “Of some interest is the fact that serial murders all but disappeared… during World War II, when there were murders on a larger, more wholesale scale, occurring on every battlefront,” Ressler explained in his book, I Have Lived in the Monster. “After the war, however, such killings began again… and have since picked up considerable speed.” While most murderers knew their victims, a certain type of killer seemingly struck at random. These violent criminals lashed out at victims in crime sprees, killing multiple times. Robert Ressler named them “serial killers” after he noticed their episodic sprees reminded him of the movie serials he used to watch as a child, according to The New York Times. And he would spend the next 30 years of his career with the FBI devoted to catching them. Inside Ressler’s Dangerous Interviews With Serial Killers The FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, created the Behavioral Science Unit in 1972. The BSU would use the tools of psychology to understand violent crimes, and Robert Ressler was poised to play a crucial role in the new unit. FBIRobert Ressler (left) stands next to killer Edmund Kemper and his partner John Douglas at the California State Medical Facility. With the science of serial killers so new, the FBI needed data — and lots of it. So Ressler and his partner, John Douglas, began interviewing dozens of serial killers. During the interviews, Ressler and Douglas asked the killers about their childhoods, reasons for killing, and methods. They listened as convicted murderers explained the brutal ways they chose victims and carried out their crimes. Ressler had to stay on the good side of his interview subjects — the interviews were voluntary, so the convict could end the session at any moment. “He went on face-to-face interviews with the most notorious and successful serial killers at that particular time,” said Roy Hazelwood, who worked with Ressler at the FBI. Those killers included the likes of Charles Manson, Richard Speck, and David Berkowitz, New York’s “Son of Sam.” But one of the most harrowing stories Ressler recalled in his book Whoever Fights Monsters and later inspired a similar scene in Mindhunters. During Ressler’s third interview in a locked room alone with Ed Kemper, who stood six feet nine inches tall and once decapitated his own mother in addition to murdering eight women at the age of 21, the buzzer to alert the guards wasn’t working. And when Kemper noticed, he stood up from his chair, smiled, and told him, “If I went apeshit in here, you’d be in a lot of trouble, wouldn’t you? I could screw your head off and place it on the table to greet the guard.” But despite the risk to Ressler and the other agents, these interviews helped the BSU create serial killer profiles to catch the killers who were still at large. Florida Photographic CollectionTed Bundy, shortly after policy recaptured him in 1978. And this experience helped Ressler create a detailed profile: serial killers were usually adult men with an emotionally or physically abusive past. Often loners, the killers were likely to have abused animals in the past and usually battled sexual demons. Cities attracted killers because they offered “places for the murderer to blend into crowds, hide and become anonymous.” In 1977, the FBI put the profiles to the test. That December, Ted Bundy escaped from prison. With the serial killer at large, the FBI created a profile based on Ressler’s research. Robert Ressler and another BSU agent, Howard Teten, had created a psychological assessment of Ted Bundy. The profile, drawing on Bundy’s behavioral and psychological patterns, was included with Bundy’s FBI Ten Most Wanted listing, helping to catch Bundy a mere six weeks after his escape. How Robert Ressler Created A National Crime Database In the 1970s, Robert Ressler and John Douglas interviewed 36 serial killers. Early on, it was evident that their research proved that profiling could catch killers. But how could the FBI share its data with local police departments? Robert Ressler interviewing John Wayne Gacy in the 1980s. Cutting-edge computer technology offered an answer. Ressler and Douglas helped establish a national database known as the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP). The database allowed investigators to search based on behavioral characteristics, method of killing, and other patterns. Investigators with unsolved cases could check their open cases against the database to narrow down their search, giving them the tools to put together a profile of the killer quickly. ViCAP evolved into the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, a vital tool for the FBI. But the work of building the database took its toll. Long hours interviewing brutal killers taxed Ressler and Douglas. And sometimes, the serial killers taunted the profilers. In the 1980s, Ressler conducted multiple interviews with John Wayne Gacy, who was convicted of 33 murders. According to NPR, during one interview, the killer handed Ressler a painting of a clown. On the back, it read, “Dear Bob Ressler, you cannot hope to enjoy the harvest without first laboring in the fields. Best wishes and good luck.” When Ressler asked the killer what the inscription meant, Gacy said, “Well, Mr. Ressler, you’re the criminal profiler. You’re the FBI. You figure it out.” The Real Story Behind ‘Mindhunter’ Paul Harris/Getty ImagesAfter retiring from the FBI in 1990, Robert Ressler worked as a consultant. Robert Ressler retired from the FBI in 1990 but continued to work as a consultant. He advised author Thomas Harris on the infamous character of Hannibal Lecter, and he wrote several books that shared decades of Ressler’s experience hunting killers. “There are people that are pretty good at this, and I would consider myself one of them, certainly,” Ressler told NPR. And in 1991, he even joined the defense team for Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed and cannibalized at least 17 people in Wisconsin in the 1970s and ’80s, to help them determine his psychological state — and he walked away feeling more chilled than after any interview before. Dahmer, Ressler wrote in Whoever Fights Monsters, “encompassed so many usually unrelated dynamics that we may have to make him the prime example of an entirely new category of serial killer.” John Douglas, Ressler’s former partner, also wrote an influential book — Mindhunter, which inspired the Netflix series of the same name. The character Bill Tench is based on Robert Ressler. Robert Ressler died on May 5, 2013, but his groundbreaking work continues to influence criminal profilers today. Investigator Robert Ressler helped found the science of criminal profiling. Next, read about John Joubert, the Eagle Scout who became a serial killer. Then, take a look at terrifying paintings by John Wayne Gacy. The post Meet Robert Ressler, The First FBI Profiler And The Man Who Coined The Term ‘Serial Killer’ appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Genevieve MarieAmie Harwick was a Hollywood-based therapist known for her work in family and sex counseling. In the early morning hours of Feb. 15, 2020, Amie Harwick returned to her Hollywood Hills apartment after a night out at a burlesque show, texting with a friend about a possible upcoming trip. Nothing in her messages suggested fear. Nothing hinted that she was walking into a nightmare. But inside her home, someone was already waiting. Moments after Harwick climbed the stairs to her third-floor bedroom, her downstairs roommate, Michael Herman, was jolted awake by someone screaming. He heard the sounds of a struggle, and a body hitting the floor. Herman searched desperately for his phone but couldn’t find it, so he ran outside to find help and then immediately called 911. When the police arrived, however, they found Harwick unconcious beneath her third-story bedroom balcony. She had bruises on her neck, and, nearby, investigators found a syringe containing brownish liquid. At 3:26 a.m., Harwick was pronounced dead. An autopsy would later reveal she had been strangled before being thrown from the balcony. The question investigators immediately asked was: who would want Amie Harwick dead? Her friends had an answer. A Life Dedicated To Helping Others Robert CoshlandAmie Harwick smiles during her first date with Drew Carey at Disneyland. Long before her murder made headlines, Amie Harwick had built a life centered on helping other people. Born Amie Nicole Harwick on May 20, 1981, Harwick grew up in Pennsylvania and moved to Los Angeles in her 20s. She worked tirelessly to support herself with jobs as a personal trainer, a bartender, a go-go dancer, and a model, including work for Playboy, all while putting herself through college in hopes of becoming a therapist. She earned a degree in psychology, followed by a master’s in clinical psychology, and eventually built a practice in West Hollywood specializing in family and sex therapy. Many of Harwick’s clients were women recovering from trauma and abuse, and Harwick advocated for sex workers who were often denied access to mental health care. In 2014, she authored The New Sex Bible for Women and established herself as a prominent Hollywood sex therapist as she spoke openly about sexual health across podcasts, television appearances, and YouTube. Four years later, Harwick’s life briefly entered the mainstream spotlight when she became engaged to “The Price Is Right” host Drew Carey. Though the engagement ended less than a year later, the breakup was amicable. Robert CoshlandAmie Harwick was once engaged to TV show host, Drew Carey. Indeed, in the weeks before her death, Harwick reached out to Carey again, suggesting they meet in the spirit of friendship and forgiveness. Carey was glad to hear from her, and the two agreed to reconnect after Valentine’s Day. They never got the chance. Amie Harwick’s Murder On Valentine’s Night 2020 On the evening of Feb. 14, 2020, Harwick spent Valentine’s Day with friends at a burlesque show at the Globe Theater. That night, Harwick wore a rosary-style necklace that would later become evidence in her murder. After the night out Harwick made her way to her home in the Hollywood Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles. Shortly after 1 a.m., she texted one friend asking for photos from the night, and another about an upcoming trip they were planning. Nothing about the messages suggested that Harwick knew she was in danger. But her killer was lying in wait. Miss ToshAmie Harwick with friends on her last night alive. She’s wearing a rosary necklace, which later became a piece of evidence in her murder. Earlier in the night, her downstairs roommate Michael Herman had heard what sounded a plate dropping. He assumed it was just Harwick’s cat, and fell back asleep. But after Harwick got home, he was woken up again — to the sound of a woman frantically screaming. Realizing something was terribly wrong, and unable to find his phone, Herman raced to neighbors’ homes for help. No no one answered the door, but Herman was able to flag down someone walking by, who used their cellphone to call 911 at 1:14 a.m, according to reporting from CBS News. By the time the police arrived at the scene just a few minutes later, however, Amie Harwick had already been thrown nearly 20 feet from her third-floor balcony. She was found battered and unresponsive on the patio below, and later died at the hospital from blunt-force injuries. Harwick was 38. Inside the home, detectives discovered a broken window, a trail of broken rosary beads which led out onto the balcony, and a syringe filled with liquid. This was an especially disturbing find given that Harwick’s friends said she didn’t drink or do drugs. Lab testing later revealed the syringe contained nicotine, a substance that can be lethal in concentrated doses. Superior Court of California, County of Los AngelesAt the crime scene, investigators found a syringe filled with liquid. So who had murdered Amie Harwick? As police spoke to her friends, they learned that Harwick had been living in fear. She had spoken about installing a new security system, carried pepper spray, and started sharing her phone location with a trusted friend, Robert Coshland. And after her death, Coshland accessed Harwick’s email and found something haunting. Weeks earlier, Harwick had written a message to herself describing a terrifying encounter with an ex-boyfriend at an adult industry awards show. “He started screaming,” Harwick wrote to herself after the alarming encounter. “He was sobbing… distorting his face and shaking violently… It terrifies me,” she added, “that he’s been obsessed with me for nine years.” The man she described was named Gareth Pursehouse. Gareth Pursehouse, The Man Who Murdered Amie Harwick Superior Court of California, County of Los AngelesGareth Pursehouse was arrested and charged with the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Amie Harwick. Weeks before Amie Harwick’s death, she had run into Pursehouse — an ex from almost a decade earlier — at an event. As Harwick wrote in her email to herself, and told her mother, the ecounter had been terrifying. Pursehouse had confronted her, screamed that she had ruined his life, and chillingly recited text messages that she had sent nine years ago. “Tonight, I felt very scared,” Harwick wrote in her email. “Gareth came up behind me and started screaming… I’m pretty nervous that I’m more on his radar now… He’s focused on harming me.” Harwick had a reason to be afraid: Pursehouse had physically abused her. He had choked her, suffocated her, and punched her during their relationship. Harwick had called the police multiple times, documented her injuries, and ultimately filed a restraining order against him, though it had long since expired. After the breakup, she also suspected that he had broken into her home, stolen personal photos, and wiped her computer clean. After her run-in with Pursehouse in early 2020, Harwick took steps to protect herself, but didn’t think that she could file another restraining order, since he had not explicitly threatened her. Still, she felt her life was in danger. To Coshland Harwick warned, “If anything ever happens to me…it’s him.” Los Angeles County District Attorney’s OfficeGareth Pursehouse was arrested for the murder of Harwick on Feb. 15, 2020. Indeed, investigators soon pieced together what happened on the night of Amie Harwick’s murder. They found a shattered glass panel in her French doors of her apartment, along with blood that matched Pursehouse, which indicated how he’d broken in. Though the rest of the apartment was clean, Harwick’s bed covers were disturbed, leading police to suspect that Pursehouse had climbed into Harwick’s bed and waited for her there. When she arrived back home, they had seemingly fought until Pursehouse overpowered Harwick, strangled her, and threw her body off the balcony. And chillingly, when police went to Pursehouse’s house the next day, they found that he had a black eye and bite mark on his bicep. Inside his residence, police found a syringe similar to the one recovered on Harwick’s balcony. At trial, Pursehouse’s defense attorney argued that he’d gone to Harwick’s house with the syringe to kill himself in front of her. But a jury ultimately convicted him of first-degree murder, bringing the end to a case defined by obsession, control, and terrible violence. “I feel like a widower, you know, in a lot of ways, because I wanted to marry her, and then we had this horrible breakup,” Drew Carey said about Harwick. “And then before I could talk to her again, somebody killed her.” Amie Harwick believed in advocating for women. Tragically, despite all her precautions, she couldn’t protect herself. With Pursehouse sentenced to life in prison, justice was finally served, even if it came far too late. Now that you’ve read about the death of Amie Harwick, read about the shocking death of Hollywood actress Brittany Murphy. Then, learn the story of singing legend Whitney Houston and her tragic passing. The post Inside The Horrific Death Of Amie Harwick, The Former Fiancée Of Comedian Drew Carey appeared first on All That's Interesting.

What? You know not what you do was muttered by Nicholas just seconds before he and his family were executed by a Bolshevik firing squad on the night of the 16th-17th July 1918 in Yekaterinburg, Russia.  Whether he truly spoke them or not, they have come to define the tragedy of a man condemned not only by revolution but by history itself. Yet a question still lingers of how did a man born into extreme privilege end up facing executioners in a dimly lit cellar? The answer is tangled in tragedy, misunderstandings, and myths. Nicholas’s legacy has been dominated by his weak, cruel, and helpless character – yet each story tells us much about those who wrote it as it does about Nicholas himself.  He was seen as weak, yet every choice was bound by conviction. A ruler so certain by his divine calling that he mistook faith for strength and in the end, belief, not hesitation undid him.Sophie Riley explains. Nicholas II and family in a formal photograph, c. 1904. Source: Boasson and Eggler St. Petersburg Nevsky 24, available here.The Weak AutocratFor over a century Nicholas has been portrayed as a weak out of touch ruler who caused the collapse of the Russian Empire. A man who was too passive and indecisive. A Monarch who waited for divine intervention to act, this belief showed his conviction in his power being sacred and not political.Nicholas II was crowned Russia’s Tsar on the 26th May 1896 in Moscow’s Dormition Cathedral. During the ceremony the Tsar was blessed with holy oil and took communion. These acts symbolised that he was blessed by God to rule. In addition to this Nicholas also recited traditional catholic prayers that he would later reference as reasons why he could not concede to a constitutional and parliamentary government.Nicholas’s Orthodox faith served as his political compass by reinforcing his divine right to rule as an autocrat. In doing so he believed that any attempted to weaken his power was betrayal of his sacred obligation to God.  This deep conviction was the core of his political ideology Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality. However, this belief would come at a cost during the 1905 revolution where he authorised the use of force to restore order, sanctioning repression which in turn cost the lives of hundreds of Russian people. Later that same year he was forced to concede to the October manifesto and create the Duma which he would consistently undermine and dissolve twice.  These were not the actions of a ruler that was paralysed by doubt. They show a Monarch that acted decisively when he felt that the foundation of his autocracy was being threatened.  His tragedy lay not in failing to choose but in repeatedly choosing to prese4rve an absolute system that could not survive. As a ruler the Tsar appeared to be detached from reality of modern governance to this around him, particularly those who within his political and diplomatic circles.  The British Ambassador Sir George Buchanan would describe him as lovable man with good intentions but ultimately not born to set Russia right. — a judgement that would echo through later historical accounts.  His ministers would claim that his decisions were too slow, consultations limited and crises were met with silence.  His people would describe him as bloody Nicholas am a responsible for military failures and repression. This perception hardened into myth.  Revolutionary propaganda transformed quiet conviction into incompetence. Later, Soviet histography framed Nicholas as a symbol of decaying autocracy.  Yet modern historians would suggest that it was rigidity and refusal to change that led to the downfall of the tsar not weakness. Nicholas did not lose his throne because he lacked will power, he lost it because his will was anchored to the belief of Autocracy above everything and his unwillingness to change. His mistaking in a divine right to rule remained in a world that was changing and moving on without him.This rigid devotion, increasingly reinforced by those in court would soon find its most controversial expression in the figure of Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin Rasputin’s Puppet: The Tsar and the Romanovs The name Rasputin goes hand in hand with the downfall of the Romanov family. Rasputin a charismatic Siberian man with captivating hypnotic eyes was seen by many as healer especially when he rehabilitated Tsarevich Alexei's haemophilia with soothing prayers.  However, to others he was deemed the manipulative mad monk who destroyed Russia’s royal family with his alleged heavy drinking, sexual exploits, and his influence over the Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna. This negative portrayal has deemed him as a dark force behind the Romanov decline as they steered Russia towards ruin. In the popular imagination Tsar Nicholas’s image was eclipsed by a peasant holy man whose influence symbolised moral and political decay.  Rasputin’s power was not in governance but in privacy with the royal family where his charisma and charm would gain him affection and admiration for the Tsarina and later on he would gain the respect of the Tsar. Though he never held any political position Rasputin occasionally offered his opinion on ministerial appointments, but it was Nicholas who had the final word.  Surviving correspondence highlights that Nicholas would listen to Rasputin’s opinions and then later dismiss them in their entirety. Therefore, Rasputin’s influence was inconsistent and exaggerated by the liberal press and aristocratic opponents.   The real damage caused by Rasputin was symbolic in terms of his assumed outrageous and occasionally devious behaviour that shocked the public and scandalised the court.  During World War1 when Russia was suffering in every aspect of daily life, the image of the corrupt mystic whispering in the Tsarinas ear proved devastating when the monarchy stayed silent, allowing the myth to eclipse fact.  When he was murdered in December 1916 by members of the aristocracy Rasputin’s image and legend was already solidified and eclipsed his reality. His death failed to secure the monarchy’s survival as the people’s belief in Rasputin’s power had become inseparable from   their belief in the monarchy’s collapse.  Therefore, Rasputin did not bring destroy the Romanovs but he did become a symbol through which enemies explained their fall. The Cold-Hearted Monarch Nicholas II is often remembered as an emotionally distant ruler who unmoved by the suffering of his people. His diaries are famously spare and restrained, he recorded moments of national crisis like weatherman reporting the weather. He famously described the execution of peaceful demonstrators on Bloody Sunday in 1905 as painful and sad but he did not show any outward grief or remorse. To many contemporises this highlight the Tsars lack of empathy. However, this detachment should not be excused for indifference. Nicholas believed deeply in his role as paternal ruler who was there to guide his people through his morals and spirituality. He saw himself as a father figure who preserved peace and stability not a distant tyrant who caused destruction at any cost.  His world view helped shape his response to civil and global unrest.His inability to express emotions publicly, or respond to tragedy in ways expected by a modern ruler, proved disastrous. At a time when mass politics demanded   visibility, compassion, and reform. Nicholas offered prayers and silence.  Silence, restraint, and faith where his tools.  In an age of upheaval these tools would prove fatal.   The myth of the cold-hearted monarch soon evolved into something darker. Nicholas was no longer merely distant he became historically the architect of Russia’s ruin. The Architect of Collapse Nicholas II is described as the architect of Russia’s collapse, a man who had designed his empire ruin with intent. However, he inherited an empire strained by contradiction. During the 20th century Russia remained autocratic in form but modern in pressure: a diverse population was governed through personal authority over durable institutions. Land hunger, civil unrest and the absence of meaningful political participation created fault long before Nicholas’s reign. His tragedy was not that he created weaknesses, but that he trusted Russia’s fragile state to withstand an age of crisis.The First World War transformed Nicholas’s weakness into a catastrophe. Mobilisation of the Russian military strained an already fragile economy, and shortages turned hardship into anger. In 1915, Nicholas made the fateful decision to assume personal command of the Army, tying the monarchy’s fate to military success. Defeat at the front became failure at the throne. While Nicholas remained at headquarters, the capital endured inflation, hunger, and political paralysis. Authority, once rooted in ritual and belief, now competed with queues for bread.By February 1917, collapse arrived in the way of strikes and demonstrations. As a result, Nicholas abdicated not in the face of a victorious revolution, but because no one remained willing to defend him. His final act was framed as duty rather than defeat, a sacrifice for order rather than a concession to force. The monarchy fell less through overthrow than through abandonment.Furthermore, this highlights that Nicholas was not the architect of collapse, but its reluctant engineer. He did not build the conditions that destroyed his reign, but he refused to redesign them. The empire he inherited required transformation. The empire he governed received preservation instead. Between the two, the Romanov dynasty slipped quietly into history. By 1917, Collapse was no longer an act of revolution but a result of quiet consequences of belief, war, and abandonment.  The Luxurious Last DaysIn popular memory, the Romanovs passed their final months cocooned in comfort while Russia starved. It is a compelling image, shaped by revolutionary propaganda and long resentment toward imperial privilege. The reality was plainer. After abdication, the family moved from palace to house arrest, from Tsarskoe Selo to Tobolsk and finally to the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg. With each move, splendour gave way to supervision, routine, and confinement.They were not destitute. They had books, warm clothing, and enough food when others did not. Yet in a nation ravaged by war and shortages, even modest security appeared obscene. The myth of luxury therefore served a purpose: it transformed execution into reckoning. Their final months became not simply a story of captivity, but a moral judgment on who they had once been. The Man Behind the Myth  Not long after his execution Nicholas II had already been replaced by a plethora of myths that called him a weak autocrat, a tyrant, and the architect of Russia’s collapse. These myths endured because they offered clarity over historical contradiction. Stripped of his mythological caricature, Nicholas appears neither as a monster nor a martyr, but a ruler shaped by his underlying belief.  A man devoted to duty and family, a man who was also fatally unsuited to the political age he ruled.His tragedy lay in the collision between conviction and change. Where his world demanded adaptation, he offered continuity; where it required compromise, he held to authority. To look beyond the myths is not to excuse his failures, but to understand them. Nicholas II did not lose his throne because he was uniquely cruel or foolish, but because the values that sustained him could not survive the century he inhabited. Was Nicholas II judged for what he was — or for what Russia needed him to be? The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.