Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Sallent, post: 3187513, member: 76194&quot;][USER=85693]@Marsyas Mike[/USER] look at Roman history and you will see a pattern that repeats itself so many times as to be suspicious. Almost without exception, every time an emperor is assassinated (especially if he didn&#039;t leave behind a strong successor of his own choosing) we are told by historians that he was a tyrant. Is it any surprise? After all, the emperor that succeeded him (or the emperor that overthrew the weak successor) had a vested interest in tarnishing his predecesor&#039;s reputation to make himself look more worthy of ruling. And the best way to dismiss any suspicion that the new emperor was guilty of regicide is to paint the old emperor as an illegitimate tyrant who deserved what he got, and thus was murdered by regular people/Senate/troops for his offenses to the gods and human decency.</p><p><br /></p><p>And just about every emperor who left a strong successor on the throne (of his own choosing) has come down to us as a good Emperor because his successor had much to gain from pining his legitimacy on the wisdom, legitimacy to rule, and character of his predecessor. Thus historians would be bribed to weave pretty tales about the dead emperor.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in