Pathetic Historical Characters

[Marcus Ulpius]

ummm...
Trajan - Roosevelt

Diocletian - JFK

Constantine - Richard Nixon

Dubya - Romulus Augusulus

I wouldn't exaggerate and compare Dubya to Romulus Augustus. I'd compare him to some mediocre early 4-th century emperor. Actually I think from the Western point of view the geopolitical situation indeed looks like early 4-th century was for Romans.

[Che Roriniho]

I wouldn't exaggerate and compare Dubya to Romulus Augustus. I'd compare him to some mediocre early 4-th century emperor. Actually I think from the Western point of view the geopolitical situation indeed looks like early 4-th century was for Romans.

I want him to become anoytheer Maximius Daia, but sadly suicide isn't going to be likely. I do have a bit of a soft spot for MD, as not only does he have the same birthday as me, but he stood up against that utter pillock Constantine 'the Great' who set the destruction of the empire into motion. Still, he was a bit of a pillock. phailed at strategy as well, actually, now you've come to mention it?

[Marcus Ulpius]

I want him to become anoytheer Maximius Daia, but sadly suicide isn't going to be likely. I do have a bit of a soft spot for MD, as not only does he have the same birthday as me, but he stood up against that utter pillock Constantine 'the Great' who set the destruction of the empire into motion. Still, he was a bit of a pillock. phailed at strategy as well, actually, now you've come to mention it?

Absolutely agree that Constantine The Great was not so great as an emperor. He was proclaimed "The Great" by the church for recognizing Christianity, but as an emperor he did little good for an empire. That massive civil war he instigated was the last straw that have broken the camel's back. From there the things went downhill fast.

[Che Roriniho]

Absolutely agree that Constantine The Great was not so great as an emperor. He was proclaimed "The Great" by the church for recognizing Christianity, but as an emperor he did little good for an empire. That massive civil war he instigated was the last straw that have broken the camel's back. From there the things went downhill fast.

Don't even get me started on the Church. Destroying every great and noble deed done before, during and since it's creation. Fully half of the 6 wonders of thew world we have definate knowledge of their existence from (Hanging Gardens might not have existed) were destroyed by the Church. They torched he library of alexandria, and killed it's last, and arguably greatest, keeper, Hypatia in a horrible, horrible way (raped, then flayed, before being burnt alive). This caused the datrk ages. Who knows where we could be if they hadn't done that? Thanks christ. When you died, so did everything else.

[J.Alco]

That last post is out of place in this thread, not needed or wanted. Sorry if that sounds like I'm being a prick but you must understand that in the past, whenever the topic of religion has creeped into an EB thread, things have gotten ugly pretty quickly, offense has been taken, insults have flown and flaming has occured, and it has invariably ended with threads being locked down. There are places to discuss and debate the validity of religion in society, this thread is not one of them. Again, sorry if I sound like a prick but I've seen this sort of thing before so I'm just trying to, metaphorically, stop the flaming barrel before it hits the gas station. I hope you understand.

On the subject of this thread, I'm really pleased that my assertions about Lepidus and Richard Cromwell have been disagreed with. It's good to see that everyone has a different opinion about the actions of any historical character. I was pretty surprised to see Napoleon here! Of course, one man's genius is another man's buffoon, eh?

[Sarcasm]

Not biased or sensationalist at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't even get me started on the Church. Destroying every great and noble deed done before, during and since it's creation. Fully half of the 6 wonders of thew world we have definate knowledge of their existence from (Hanging Gardens might not have existed) were destroyed by the Church. They torched he library of alexandria, and killed it's last, and arguably greatest, keeper, Hypatia in a horrible, horrible way (raped, then flayed, before being burnt alive). This caused the datrk ages. Who knows where we could be if they hadn't done that? Thanks christ. When you died, so did everything else.

There is a difference between the Church and terrorists who call themselves Christians, it's the same difference now as it was then. I would suggest that you bear that in mind when discussing these things.

as far as Constantine goes, I think he had an interesting idea, using a hybridisation of the popular civilian and military religions to try to hold the Empire together, and in fact it sort of worked, if you look at Mediaeval Christendom and the Papacy you can see that it helped to hold the Western powers at least loosely together in terms of language and culture.

Unfortunately the Empire was already in terminal decline when Constantine took power and he was unable to find a successor who could continue things in the same direction. Change of direction was a major issue for the Roman Empire, and the Republic before it.

As a man he was pretty ruthless and dispicable though.

[Celtic_Punk]

no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.

FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.

[Marcus Ulpius]

no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.

FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.

I wouldn't describe Christianity as a source of all evils. The rise of Christianity took place at the same time as the destruction of the classical world, but Christianity was not the cause of that destruction. Actually the decline of the classical world and more precisely that of the Roman Empire was the cause of the rise of Christianity.

As to Christianity "stealing" all the stories, Christianity is hardly alone here. Judaism have incorporated a lot from Assyro-Shumerian mythology and Islam is pretty much built on the foundations of Christianity and Judaism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.

FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.

Look, if you want to hate Christianity thats fine but throwing around accusations and pulling up vague linguistic oddities is not going to impress anyone. What does the egyptian "Krst" mean?

I will quite happily tell you where Christ comes from, from the Greek "Cristos" meaning "anointed one" which is the meaning of Messiah, an appelation given to such historical characters as David and the pagan Persian Cyrus the Great. As I title it really isn't all that gobsmacking and it certainly doesn't indicate he was the litteral son of God. What it does indicate is his status as a legitimate Israelite King, for which he seems to have had a fairly good genaeological claim.

Now to take the Library at Alexandria, it is said that the Patriarch ordered the burning all the pagan temples in the city but even a quick glance at wiki shows it's not that clear cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

The Emperor ordered the closing of all pagan temples at this time and the Church happily agreed but I see no evidence, in the contemporary or near contemporary sources, that he deliberately destroyed the Royal Library. To be honest I find it difficult to believe given the fairly generous view many Churchmen held of Pagan philiosohpy, an excellant exposition of the view was provided in "On the Christian Doctrine" by Saint Augustine.

[Che Roriniho]

There is a difference between the Church and terrorists who call themselves Christians, it's the same difference now as it was then. I would suggest that you bear that in mind when discussing these things.

as far as Constantine goes, I think he had an interesting idea, using a hybridisation of the popular civilian and military religions to try to hold the Empire together, and in fact it sort of worked, if you look at Mediaeval Christendom and the Papacy you can see that it helped to hold the Western powers at least loosely together in terms of language and culture.

Unfortunately the Empire was already in terminal decline when Constantine took power and he was unable to find a successor who could continue things in the same direction. Change of direction was a major issue for the Roman Empire, and the Republic before it.

As a man he was pretty ruthless and dispicable though.

admittedly Diocletian set it on a bit of a downhill, but Constantine just destroyed it. plus, his milatary reforms turned ythe army into a shadow of it's former self. gone are the scutums, here are a sort of round thingy. Well done, you wazzok.

Also the Temple of Artemis at Ephesius (sp?)was destroyed ijn a mob led by Saint John Chrysostom, so it's not entirely unsolicited.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

admittedly Diocletian set it on a bit of a downhill, but Constantine just destroyed it. plus, his milatary reforms turned ythe army into a shadow of it's former self. gone are the scutums, here are a sort of round thingy. Well done, you wazzok.

Also the Temple of Artemis at Ephesius (sp?)was destroyed ijn a mob led by Saint John Chrysostom, so it's not entirely unsolicited.

Diocletian? Try Marius.

Under Constantine the Army was restructured to be more fluid and mobile and to prevent any one commander from amassing a large enough force for long enough to threaten Imperial authority. Getting rid of the scutum was beyond irrelevant, and the shield that replaced it was much better suited for the kind of legionary warfare that had developed, not to mention easier to use, lighter and cheaper to make. Ecenomics killed the Empire and that was down to about 100 years of Civil War.

I'm not denying that terrible things were done in the name of Christianity, but that in no way makes the Church itself an evil thing.