Discussion in 'The Alley' started by King Dex, Jan 23, 2014.
I can't think of anybody more unfairly maligned by history.
explain yoself foo
I don't know who that is, should I?
Studying his reign, I don't see the actions of a delusional man, but a strategist.
He saw that the senate were corrupt, greedy cocksuckers. His actions seemed to be aimed at diminishing their power and creating a heavenly-mandated (declaring himself Jupiter) absolute monarchy based on strict hereditary succession (explaining his relationship with his sister) not as prone to the sort of ugly power jockeying which ultimately brought Rome down.
I think Akhenaten was a similarly tragic figure. Both challenged the power elite of their day, lost, and got painted as delusional maniacs by the victors.
not sure about Caligula, but I'll definitely concur on Akhenaten. in the Pharoahs case, he tried to break the power of the priest class, lost, and was nearly blotted out of the history books as a result.
So many articles featuring "Insane Rulers" when searching for Caligula.
Most of the hideous stuff we know about Caligula was written by his enemies after he was killed. He hated the Senate and the Senate absolutely despised him. Tiberius is another one, a good ruler, he got Rome's finances back on track.
how do you know?
also, are there any non-enemies (either allies or impartial observers) that recorded anything about him? if not, how you propose we separate slander from history in his case?
jesus h. christ?
your threads always spawn a good read, so cheers.
What do you mean "how do I know?" --- I am not trying to be condescending or anything but I think you need to brush up on Roman history.
Yeah, your Roman history game is weak sauce. No offence bro, we cool. But yeah, try reading a Roman history book you pleb retard.
that's probably true. i don't think that answers my question though.
Separate names with a comma.