Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="johnmilton, post: 24778827, member: 101855"]The criteria for good and bad Roman emperors and British kings have changed. The “good ones” are those who conquered territories and could hang on to them. The “bad ones” often lost territory, but there were a host of other ways they could go wrong. I have read some articles that have defended Nero. Some of the stuff, like the claim he used Christians as human torches was not true. He also didn’t set Rome on fire and tried to help the refugees of that blaze after it occurred. He seems to have been a decent emperor when he had and heeded good advice. His biggest problem seems have been that he was not able to ply his favorite profession, that of a poet and entertainer. That was what he really wanted to do in life. As for some others, I think that Caligula and Caracalla were monsters. I also can’t see how Tiberius makes the good list. He spent a considerable part of his reign in a self imposed exile. So far as British kings are concerned, John was probably the worst. I also don’t care  for Edward II who allowed his homosexuality to dominate his rule. I don’t have a problem with gay people. Edward, however, lavished gifts on his favorites to the detriment of the rest of the British population. Mary I is also low on my list. She burned almost 300 people at the stake because of their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]