Discussion in 'World History' started by GuitarHero, Dec 19, 2008.
What is your opinion on Caligula?
Poll coming, so is my opinion.
I think he was rock-hard awesome! \w/
Personally, I think he was a good Emperor who was a victim of historical bias.
If by "good" you mean "psychotic, murderous, tyrannical dictator" then yeah, he was an effing saint.
they crushed his little daughter to her death againt a wall.
Yes, to the upper class.
Caligula was only a murderer in the game in my sig.
Like every other Roman Emperor.
It didn't stop him from doing the Roman Empire good.
Architecture, lower taxers for the poor, higher taxes for the rich, Mauretania.
He was a good man, and the upper class historians like Suetonius totally wrecked his cred because he treated the hoity-toity bastards like the scum they are.
But she fought 'til the end!
I liked his sexual exploits in that one movie.
His reputation is much overstated by biased Roman historians. He was actually fairly decent.
I'm giddily suprised to see that I am not alone in my favor of Caligula.
They didn't have to wreck his credibility, he did that on his own.
The man demanded that he be worshipped as a living God. I don't think any Roman Emperor ever did that. He also tried to make his horse a consul and a priest; around here, we call that "insane." And the reason he increased taxes on the wealthy was because he spent the whole treasury on bribes and excessively extravagant parties. He basically had about a year of doing good stuff, and the other three years were pretty much insanity.
And I don't see why conquering Mauritania is a good thing. What's in Mauritania?
The Inicatius for Consul 'n' Preist thing was a jab at the incumbent Consuls, who were highly ineffective. Around here, we call that clever.
Everyone who knew him at the time testified in writing that the man was insane.
Everyone I know does the same thing, yet here I am, debating you with reason and sense. Getting called crazy doesn't mean anything.
They didn't call him crazy as a slander, they testified that the man was not right in the head. I'm beginning to see why you admire him so.
I testify that he was driven nutty, but that he still had enough sense in him to rule and function. Perhaps this has been lost in translation.
Does it matter? The guy was nuts. Sure, he was one of the "better" emperors, but that's like choosing the best kind of crap to eat.
How so? Explain why.
It's pretty self-explanatory, isn't it? He's an Emperor. A Roman Emperor. They're not exactly St. Francis.
Well, Roman Emperor is pretty damn high in the Grand Pecking Order.
Separate names with a comma.