|
Everybody wants to defend Elagabalus but no one wants to defend Gallienus! He was a SURVIVOR.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Odds are Elagabalus was a terrible emperor by virtue of the fact he was a teen. It is very very rare for the kid emperors to be anything but awful for obvious reasons. The stories of sexual depravity are pretty boilerplate Roman shittalking of someone who is disliked so it's not worth taking all that seriously. That's why I cringe a little when people are like "Elagabalus should be rehabilitated he was just attacked for being the first transgender ruler!" which is a take I've seen come up more recently. I mean, sure maybe? But you're making a lot of assumptions on top of the big assumption that the stories about him are accurate, which is real dicey. If you're going to go that direction you're much better off with like Hadrian was 100% gay as hell, which is pretty easy to support. Though the better way to look at it is our ideas about LGBT people are derived from our modern culture and don't have particularly good application to ancient cultures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Did Sophocles write about Cinyras and Myrrha? I didnt think he did, but I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
Which Roman Emperors can be definitively determined to be dumber than Donald Trump?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
If you're going to list any of those rulers as getting undeservedly bad raps, it's probably either Nero or Commodus. Nero wasn't a great Emperor, but during his reign, he concluded a successful peace with Parthia and settled the Armenia problem, put down a revolt in Britain, successfully rebuilt the city after the great fire, and was probably pretty popular outside the senatorial class, given the folk worship of him after his death, the fact that a bunch of Neroian imposters showed up, and that Otho and Vitellus both used Nero as a way to try to legitimize their rule. Nero's biggest mistake is that he took a bunch of time off to play athlete in Greece. Commodus was just largely indifferent, turning all sorts of authority to Cleander because he couldn't be bothered. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Didius Julianus bribed the Praetorian guard to make him emperor with money he didn't have and didn't have any way to get. There's a reason he was only emperor for five weeks. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Which Roman Emperors can be definitively determined to be dumber than Donald Trump? None of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:None of them. This might literally be true and it makes me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:None of them. I'm not sure there has ever been an elected head of state dumber than Donald Trump. The only competitor I can think of is Charles II of Spain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure there has ever been an elected head of state dumber than Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Oh there is no doubt that Trump is the dumbest human being ever elected to high office. There have been more brain dead inbred people who have inherited titles though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:If you're going to list any of those rulers as getting undeservedly bad raps, it's probably either Nero or Commodus. Nero wasn't a great Emperor, but during his reign, he concluded a successful peace with Parthia and settled the Armenia problem, put down a revolt in Britain, successfully rebuilt the city after the great fire, and was probably pretty popular outside the senatorial class, given the folk worship of him after his death, the fact that a bunch of Neroian imposters showed up, and that Otho and Vitellus both used Nero as a way to try to legitimize their rule. Nero's biggest mistake is that he took a bunch of time off to play athlete in Greece. Nero and Commodus seem to have been genuinely bad people on a personal level, though. Nero at least was probably more competent in some sense than Elagabalus; what I’m objecting to is more the idea that Elagabalus was somehow one of history’s greatest monsters. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Didius Julianus bribed the Praetorian guard to make him emperor with money he didn't have and didn't have any way to get. There's a reason he was only emperor for five weeks. Wait are you saying that if I tell the captain of the praetorian guard that I'm totally good for a bribe of a gazillion denarii I can be emperor for a month
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
The late Hapsburgs come to mind there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Nero and Commodus seem to have been genuinely bad people on a personal level, though. Most of the Roman Emperors were genuinely bad people on a personal level. But most of the people who lived in the Empire didn't interact with them on a personal level. So it seems to me, if you're judging them as emperors, the bigger question than, "Was this person moral or immoral" is, "How did they govern, and what affects did their governance have on the empire as a whole, and the people living in it?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Wait are you saying that if I tell the captain of the praetorian guard that I'm totally good for a bribe of a gazillion denarii I can be emperor for a month For as long as the Praetorian guard are willing to wait for the money, at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Most of the Roman Emperors were genuinely bad people on a personal level. But most of the people who lived in the Empire didn't interact with them on a personal level. So it seems to me, if you're judging them as emperors, the bigger question than, "Was this person moral or immoral" is, "How did they govern, and what affects did their governance have on the empire as a whole, and the people living in it?" Nero’s effect on the lives of Jews, Christians, the 400 slaves of Pedanius, etc. was not great either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Nero’s effect on the lives of Jews, Christians, the 400 slaves of Pedanius, etc. was not great either. Sure, but very little of that was particularly controversial. The Jews were rebelling against the empire. The Christians were a crazy cult that started fires, and the slaves of Pedanius killed their master.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:The archives of the King of France or the Elector of Bavaria (to name the two that I'm familiar with) are full of them begging their generals for swift, decisive victories, or planning what they thought would be small wars that would be over quickly. Where did they get the idea that that would be possible? Had it been possible when whoever taught them about war (their parents?) were active or is it just failure to grasp the scope of what they are attempting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Where did they get the idea that that would be possible? Had it been possible when whoever taught them about war (their parents?) were active or is it just failure to grasp the scope of what they are attempting? Well in ancient history, as mentioned, there were quite a lot of stories told as "and then the One Big Battle finally happened and the good guys won"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
I definitely get the sense sometimes that big wars in history happen at intervals where the last generation's memory of war fades and they've left just enough stories of glory left to inspire the current generation to go and do something stupid. I'm not sure how you'd figure the math to tell if that's really the case though. Shimrra Jamaane posted:Oh there is no doubt that Trump is the dumbest human being ever elected to high office. There have been more brain dead inbred people who have inherited titles though. I'm trying to think, and maybe Louis XVI? Not for most of his reign where he was merely incompetent and indecisive, but after the national assembly was butting heads with him and by some theories he was actively trying to bring the whole thing down? Charles I also comes to mind, trying to scam and embezzle his way through running England, being totally incapable of dealing properly with anyone? Still more competent than Trump though. Capable of making intelligible speeches. The key points being actively working directly contrary to the interests of the country they rule, probably beholden to a foreign power, trying and failing to stage a fascist takeover, having a previous career full of failures and cons, and being personally unable to coherently function without his handlers leading him by the nose, I dunno, some kind of colonial governor or puppet dictator?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 06:27
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Wait are you saying that if I tell the captain of the praetorian guard that I'm totally good for a bribe of a gazillion denarii I can be emperor for a month Even more hilariously, basically the only thing Didius Julianus managed to achieve during his 'reign' was devaluing the currency - which, you'd think would set off alarm bells for the Praetorians still waiting for their payoff, but it seems they were still willing to give him a chance until rivals started marching on Rome...
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm trying to think, and maybe Louis XVI? edit quote:The key points being actively working directly contrary to the interests of the country they rule, probably beholden to a foreign power, trying and failing to stage a fascist takeover, HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Where did they get the idea that that would be possible? Had it been possible when whoever taught them about war (their parents?) were active or is it just failure to grasp the scope of what they are attempting? I don't know. They're not stupid, it's just everything is so...drat...difficult in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Everyone has huge plans that lead nowhere, I mean people talk about Wallenstein's "admiral of the Baltic" debacle as later evidence that he was mentally unsound, but giant plans that seep away into the sand are routine
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:probably beholden to a foreign power
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Sure, but very little of that was particularly controversial. The Jews were rebelling against the empire. The Christians were a crazy cult that started fires, and the slaves of Pedanius killed their master. Killing the slaves of Pedanius, at least, actually was controversial with the general public. Hence Nero sending in the army.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
Honorius was pretty loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I definitely get the sense sometimes that big wars in history happen at intervals where the last generation's memory of war fades and they've left just enough stories of glory left to inspire the current generation to go and do something stupid. Well it's hardly ancient, but WWII feels like a huge screaming counterexample to this. Most people in a high political position had first accounts of the previous war (maybe the Soviets the least so?) and few people of them were in a rush to repeat the last war. I think wars happen just because the people in charge see fighting as easier than not fighting. Big wars happen when lots of people feel that way at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 07:08
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Well it's hardly ancient, but WWII feels like a huge screaming counterexample to this. Most people in a high political position had first accounts of the previous war (maybe the Soviets the least so?) and few people of them were in a rush to repeat the last war. and some had fought in a third
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
how about all you trump-like people go talk about your favourite president on some other place
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Nero and Commodus seem to have been genuinely bad people on a personal level, though. Nero definitely seems to have been an rear end in a top hat but the evidence is reasonably good that he wasn't a bad emperor, he just was one of the first to really start trying to strip power from the senatorial class and oh boy do they not like that at all. He also pissed off the Christians, so our two historical sources for Nero are not kindly disposed. Commodus was bad generally but not in like an apocalyptic way, he wasn't going to destroy the empire or anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:the soviets had all fought in the previous two wars, which happened back to back Well I was thinking of WWI, assuming there wouldn't have been too much continuity. But yeah between the Civil and Polish wars, no shortage of experience to go around. Plus Finland and Japan for good measure. Hogge Wild posted:how about all you trump-like people go talk about your favourite president on some other place Remember when we thought GWB was gonna be the worst president? Good times. Trump blows but Buchanan still reigns imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure there has ever been an elected head of state dumber than Donald Trump. The only competitor I can think of is Charles II of Spain. President Maduro in Venezuela currently giving him a run for his money President Buenaventura Báez of the Dominican Republic might have been smarter than Trump, and was definitely a better politician, but he was an impressively terrible leader. Over the course of his career, he fought against independence from Haiti, tried to sell the country to the United States, succeeded in selling the country to Spain, then somehow weaseled his way back from a luxurious retirement in Madrid (during which he was trying to get the Spanish to appoint him governor) to become President again after Spain was finally defeated and driven back off the island in a revolutionary war. He served five nonconsecutive terms, three of which ended in coups d'etat. His career finally ended with a permanent exile in Puerto Rico. Really though Trump is like the Platonic ideal of a populist tyrant as described by ancient Greek pro-democracy or oligarchy writers. Dig into the history of Latin America or post-colonial Africa and there's tons of examples of Presidents that are equally dumb but with far fewer checks on their power to cause trouble. The first generation of leaders in newly independent post-Colonial Africa almost all made terrible, terrible political and economic mistakes. Most of those who came to power in elections were quickly overthrown and frequently killed, and the few who weren't usually worked hard to make it impossible for them to ever lose an election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
Trump is just a East Coast version of Ronald Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Honorius was pretty loving stupid. His successor Valentian III is even worse somehow. At least Honorius didn't shank Stilicho in the back after a meeting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 08:26
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Trump is just a East Coast version of Ronald Reagan. This is one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard. Reagen won his elections in landslides. Had actual political experience for decades before becoming president. Didn't have a cluster gently caress of a staff with people resigning or getting fired every week. They're completely opposite foreign policy wise. He left office with one of the highest approval ratings since they started polling for approval. Trump is withdrawing from the INF treaty that Reagan signed. They're both old and they both ran as Republican, that's where the comparisons end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Who would study internet posting. Really. Everybody in the year 4000, probably. How often in history do you get a solid record of writing from commoners?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 09:08
|
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:Everybody in the year 4000, probably. How often in history do you get a solid record of writing from commoners? At the rate we're going, everybody in the year 4000 will be mutated rat people, though If there even are any people left
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:No way would Rome have surrendered if Hannibal marched on the city. He didn’t have enough men to even surrounded the city and no siege equipment. Siege equipment can be built on the spot. All you need is wood, and people who know how to work wood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 09:44
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:. They're both old and they both ran as Republican, that's where the comparisons end. I wasn't being entirely serious. Their main commonality is that they're both B-list celebrities with dementia. The upside of Trump's clusterfuck revolving door of underlings is that it will be harder for him to do as much damage as Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Siege equipment can be built on the spot. All you need is wood, and people who know how to work wood. And it can also be easily burnt, if you don't have enough men to even keep the city bottled up. Also the people you send to get the wood in the first place need to be heavily protected, or the not-encircled city can just send raiding parties to murder them all. Which is kind of hard if you don't even have enough manpower to keep the siege up. Besides, your siege lines will be incredibly weak if you are foolhardy enough to siege a fortified city with not enough men. Kind of invites a counter-attack from the forces inside the city. All told, Hannibal probably proved how good he was at his job by staying the hell away from Rome and trying instead to make the Roman allies rebel and join his side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 10:10
|
|