Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Tejas, post: 7998657, member: 84905&quot;]... but still Caligula&#039;s 4 year-reign did nothing to derail the Roman empire. Yet, Marcus Aurelius&#039; foolish campaigns and change of the mode of succession eventually ruined the empire and brought it to the brink of collapse.</p><p><br /></p><p>The difference is that Caligula (just like Commodus) was a mad tyrant, while</p><p>Marcus Aurelius was an intelligent and moderate man with good intentions. However, what do they say about good intentions and the path to hell?</p><p><br /></p><p>But I don&#039;t want to belabour Marcus Aurelius. My point is that Caligula was not the greatest misfortune of the Roman Empire. What about the battle of Adrianople in 378? It certainly was a huge step towards the ultimate demise. The sack of Rome in 410? The arrival of the Vandals in Africa in 429, which cut off grain supplies? The sack of Rome in 455? The loss of Britain and Gaul in the 5th century? In short, I think Rome suffered far greater misfortunes than the short, but brutal reign of Caligula.[/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