Poll: Caligula

[Mirc]

Consider it the equivalent of approval ratings.

Hitler was widely supported too, at first at least. Thread Godwinned.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I've never seen a movie on Calligula.... why would someone waste the time to make a movie on a madman, let alone multiple additions as you state. Actually, were I got most of what I know about Calligula and the other Roman emperors was from a book about Roman Emperors and how the majority of them led the empire down a steady path of destruction. It also mentions, that only 5 of them were "good" from a historical perspective. I can't remeber the name of the book, or all 5 of the "good" emperors, but I believe they were, Ceaser, Augustus, Tiberius, Constatine... and I can't recall the other one, but I believe he was from Spain, although that might be Tiberius, I don't have the time to try to find out as I'm about to leave for Niagara Falls to go visit family.

No offense intended, but it seems as though my kitten ran through this post and thoroughly mixed it up...

I recommend you watch I, Claudius; John Hurt does an excellent portrayal of Caligula as a young man both sane and mad at the same time. There's a part where in a moment of clarity, he asks Claudius, "Do you think I'm mad?"

Claudius knows that if he says the wrong thing he will probably be killed, so his reply is, "You set the standard of sanity for the whole world."

The Emperors we've been mostly discussing are:

Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
** the Julio-Claudian Dynasty; Julius Caesar himself was never Emperor

Then came The Year of the Four Emperors after Nero's suicide, when several generals/senators vied for power

Galba
Otho
Vitellius
Vespasian
** thus began the Flavian Dynasty

Vespasian
Titus
Domitian

Then come the "Five Good Emperors"

Nerva
Trajan
Hadrian
Antoninus Pius
Marcus Aurelius

Trajan is the one who was from Spain. Tiberius was not from Spain, and while he was an able general, he was not generally considered one of the good emperors because of the treason trials that happened during his reign. FYI, the Crucifixion happened during Tiberius' reign (although Tiberius himself probably knew next to nothing about it).

And Constantine came much, much later...

 

[Knighterror1013]

what I meant by 5 good emperors, was that the 5 it mentioned, that they had did a good job as emperor. Good enough that the Empire could stand a series of weak leadership afterwards and still be intact. Just for the record, who was the Emperor that hid in Ravenna when the Goths came and had a rooster named Rome? It was around the collapse of the Western Empire.

 

[Knighterror1013]

Anybody remember his actions to South Vietnam andthe Diem Brothers?
Anybody remember the Green Berets?
LBJ was interested in war at all; he merely followed JFK's policies.

LBJ wanted us in vietnam till the very end, and would have kept us in longer. He created the Tolkin incident. Theres a movie called Fog of War, its I believe an autobiography on Robert Mcnamara (atleast thats what it seems like, but its mainly about Vietnam). He was Secretary of Defense to both JFK and LBJ.

 

[_random_]

LBJ wanted us in vietnam till the very end, and would have kept us in longer. He created the Tolkin incident. Theres a movie called Fog of War, its I believe an autobiography on Robert Mcnamara (atleast thats what it seems like, but its mainly about Vietnam). He was Secretary of Defense to both JFK and LBJ.

Okay, this is way off topic. Let's stick with Hitler as our proof that popularity does not equate to greatness, and agree on that unless Pann shows up.

 

[stee]

I think he powns. I mean, Do you guys know the story where he went to Invade Great Britain but made his army pick up sea shells as well and leave. And you can't be any more awesome when your horse a part of the senate. 5/5 stars.

 

[Dachs]

Having not read this thread due to elitism and general distaste, I say that this poll leaves no room for ambiguity and therefore sucks.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Having not read this thread due to elitism and general distaste, I say that this poll leaves no room for ambiguity and therefore sucks.

It helps to have read the thread in order to make an intelligent comment on its content.

 

[Dachs]

It helps to have read the thread in order to make an intelligent comment on its content.

Having rectified that omission, I see no reason to have done so; it's basically more of the same old, same old. Caligula was to all intents and purposes, a Nero on a smaller scale (except possibly with respect to military success, which Nero's reign saw more of), and my opinion of them is roughly equivalent: not all that good, not all that terrible, and frankly people spend too much time blithering about Caligula's four years on the throne as it is compared to some more interesting emperors like Gallienus or Septimius Severus.

 

[_random_]

Having rectified that omission, I see no reason to have done so; it's basically more of the same old, same old. Caligula was to all intents and purposes, a Nero on a smaller scale (except possibly with respect to military success, which Nero's reign saw more of), and my opinion of them is roughly equivalent: not all that good, not all that terrible, and frankly people spend too much time blithering about Caligula's four years on the throne as it is compared to some more interesting emperors like Gallienus or Septimius Severus.

If you find them so intriguing, start a thread on Gallienus or Septimus Severus. Let the rest of us blither in peace on this one.