Emperor Vs Dictator

Discussion in 'History' started by OpteronGuy, Mar 1, 2005.

  1. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Gambit Star? I didn’t even read the turd's post.
    Seems we agree.

    Who’d a thunk?

    But that's just it though- Castro you can picture (and has been pictured) in a mess hall with his military.
    Tyrants or despots usually start off common rebels.
    That's not holy, that's fear.
    “Holy” is something magical and divine.

    Take Hirohito.
    This man was not seen let alone heard by his own people until he addressed the nation after Japanese surrender- and people were in awe to hear a god on the radio.
    Peasants would bow their head when a maroon car would drive by, as maroon, like purple or blue in other monarchies, was a color reserved for royalty.

    The theological reverence for royalty is what would keep a king or emperor from being camouflaged in a mess hall.
    The bloodline that runs through it, like golden thread, gives it a noble legitimacy and noble legitimacy is its 'magic'.
    Now take Napoleon- a Corsican of Mediterranean blood, military man with pretensions of being an Emperor.
    Of France.

    Didn't last long.
    He then imposes his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne.
    The whole Spanish empire collapses.
    No "foreigner", it seems, can sit on a throne long enough to warm it.
    Because he lacks the legitimacy of blood.

    That's what I'm getting at.
    An empire's defining point is its longevity. (at least one, no?)

    Napoleon called himself emperor and what happened?
    A temporary insanity.

    He was never an emperor.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Gendanken,

    I understand what you're getting at. However it seems to me that you're idealizing the status of Emperor somewhat. How do you think that Empires are founded?
    Caesar was not emperor. But he did create the underpinnings of the empire. And he did it through the use of the military. He was a military man. He didn't create an armed insurrection, no. But he was a military man and it is not so difficult a thought to conceive of Caesar in the the mess hall with his troops, is it?

    Or Alexander?

    It seems to me that this air of 'holiness' is something that comes later. After the hard work of consolidation has been done and the descendants of the truly great men are now resting upon their ancestor's laurels.

    Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burned.
    Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette eating 'cake' while the peasants rioted.
    Or for that matter, Hirohito being worshipped by his people.

    All these people came after generations of a.) inbreeding (ha!) and b.) resting on the laurels of the past.
    Decadence sums up nicely this viewpoint of Emperors as something great and holy. Untouchable and inhuman in their majesty.
    How many of these 'holy men' have been brought low by their decadence throughout the ages?
    The list goes on and on.

    Do you think that Hirohito ever wiped his own ass in his lifetime?

    And what of Pu Yi?

    Weak men.
    Empty men.
    Holy men?
    Ha!

    PR men.

    To our modern eyes, Kings of old would be despicable when seen at their finest banquets. Wiping their mouths with their sleeves. The table cloths. Belching. Burping. Slappng wenches on the ass. Throwing bones to dogs that yap and fight for scraps.
    Henry VIII for example. The man was a pig.
    And what of good old King George of the American Revolution times? The man was insane.
    Holy?
    Memory finds ways to make the dirty something more. Something special.
    Imagine the stench of the old nobles with their heads shaved to keep the lice off and covered in perfume to cover their foul odors.
    These are holy men?

    I understand what you're saying, but it's not that they were anything special. Merely that they were interpreted as such.

    He who lacks the legitimacy of blood might make up for it with strength of arms or sound policy. I'm sure you can come up with examples of both situations.

    One example that springs to my mind is the Norman invasion of Britain.

    Certainly. But even this is not a hard and fast rule. Witness Alexander. He ruled an empire, yes?

    Napoleon came too late for empires, I think. Such was fast becoming impossible in his time. Had he been a better man it's possible that he might have instilled an empire. I think that he capitalized on France's still present yearning for nobility. A regret for the utter destruction of their royal line. He was a conqueror, but I feel that perhaps he was self-defeating in that he never truly felt himself to be an emperor.

    Perhaps it's a stereotype. I'm no expert on Napoleon or his times. But when I think of Napoleon, I think of Donald Duck waddling about quacking, "What's so fucking funny!? Huh?! What's so fucking funny?!"


    Let me make one final point. I first thought of this at your mention of Hirohito and it further reinforced itself with the thought of Napoleon.

    We live in a time where Emperors are a practical impossibility. Not only because of the political climate but also because of the media and information age.

    We see people today where in olden times they heard of them. The 'great' men were once whispered of. Now we get all the dirt on their homosexual children and their mistresses and every other little thing that proves them to be human and not holy.

    Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the cultivation of this holy quality that you're speaking of. The descendants of the forgers of empires must hide themselves behind mystery in order to pretend to be the movers of worlds. That they have a compact with the Lord God himself.

    Such mystery is not utterly impossible in modern times but it has become infinitely more difficult.

    What of Stalin? Was he an emperor? He was treated as holy not only by his own time but for decades after. In fact, it could be said that the revelation of Stalin's crimes to his people sped the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 80's.

    The truth killed the mystery. And once the holy became the dirty the people realized that nothing was holy and all was filth.
    And so the walls came down.
    Glasnost, they called it.
    I wonder if Gorbachev regretted his decision?


    Roman,

    Oh there's plenty of real blood as well.
    And when those responsible don't have to accept culpability then they have no reason to go easy on the bloodshed.
    Plausible deniability is the watchword of the day.
    Plausible deniability is written in blood.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Good point.

    But not me- the populace. I think they're all a bunch of skin cells hoarding tons of shit and mucus like the rest of us.

    Rome began as provinces ruled by warrior kings, then power was given to senators and made a republic, and somewhere years later an Empire was born.
    Rome was powerful because of its military, as was Sparta (though never an empire)- true.
    So yes, later.

    Alexander had fleas.
    Again, good point.

    Encore:
    "But not me- the populace. I think they're all a bunch of skin cells hoarding tons of shit and mucus like the rest of us."

    People thinking in terms of holy think in terms encompassed by love and worship.
    Stalin was feared as was Hitler- those that 'loved' them were more like women with an Olson twin crush than they were Catholics counting beads off their rosairies.
    I don't romanticize them.
    Louis XIV was one gigantic pig.
    HA!
    More like- "In fact, I could be said that the revelation of communism to its people sped the downfall of communism in the 80's"

    I think you and I are seeing 'holy' very differently.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Gendanken,

    I'll accept that. However, it was you and not the populace who was categorizing emperors as something holy. As I said, I see your point, but suspect that this is something that is worn like a cloak by those who have built nothing.
    Something like the Emperor's New Clothes, I suppose.
    And just like the story this holiness is made of nothing but air.

    Speaking of Sparta...
    I'm no expert on this period in history, I'm afraid, but the age of Sparta was the age of the city-state, yes?
    And it was Alexander that united them?
    No. Wait. Actually it was his father, wasn't it? Phillip?

    And they bit his knees.

    I think you're wrong. You're looking at these men with modern eyes. Modern American eyes.

    Have you seen the images of the people in Hitler's thrall? The fanatic devotion in their eyes? Hitler wasn't feared. Hitler was worshiped.

    Is this fear? (Well, this one might be.)

    http://www.gisearch.com/images/memorialday/wwii/ww2Lcrying.jpg

    This?

    http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Ar...eng_Shan_Ho/Assignment__Vienna/diplomat6B.jpg

    How about this?

    http://www.educationdesign.com.ar/Resources/germany1918_1945/hitler_crowd01.jpg

    This?

    http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/isa/ninvest/ww2mw/gr/hiltercrowdpeasants.jpg

    One last:

    http://www.hitler.org/images/hitler.in.car2.jpg

    Sorry for all the images, but a picture speaks a thousand words, they say. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the picture I was looking for. I know you've seen it. It's the one with the woman with brownish-blonde, curly hair giving her best Hitler salute and the look in her eyes is pure, unadulterated madness. She would kill her own children if her Fuhrer asked her to. She would do anything for the object of her worship.

    These scenes above were not a rare occurrence in Hitler's day. When word got out that he would be motoring through an area the people would come out in droves. And these weren't put together by propagandists. These were inconvenient to Hitler and his planners. These were spontaneous outpourings of love and worship.

    Now. For every one that worshipped Hitler there may have been two or three that were afraid of him and what he represented, however if his Third Reich had survived who would have wrote the history and how would he have been remembered?


    Same goes for Stalin. Although in Stalin's case his worship came more from effective propaganda than any true personal charisma. Stalin was a bully with an effective propaganda machine creating a myth about him. However, those who were caught within that myth were hooked just the same. To a post WWII Soviet citizen, Stalin was God.

    In those days information was a rarity. Radio was still relatively new and television almost unheard of. Legends were easily made in those days. Made and maintained. And in a state such as the USSR where the reins of power and information were held so tightly by the ruling power, Stalin was not feared. He was revered.

    No. It was the lies that did the damage. The people were willing to sacrifice much to a noble cause. But when the lies began to surface it all crumbled. Their ideals crumbled like the emptiness that they were. The stories of great Stalin became tales of horrors and slaughter. If the people could have been lied to so systematically about this then what else were they lied to about?

    Have you heard of the controversy over Japan's historical revisionism? The youth of Japan are being taught a version of history where the Great Nation of Japan did no wrong in the war. The Rape of Nan-King is wiped. The Bataan Death March is nothing. All the atrocities are hid behind whitewash.

    Empires are held together by lies. By faulty memories.

    No. I don't think so. Not really. I just don't think that you appreciate how much people's opinions can be shaped by propaganda.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2005
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    An emperor is monarch. A dictator is not. The difference is most important when the ruler dies. An emperor presumably inherits or creates a political structure which will facilitate passing power to his eldest son. When a dictator dies, his successor is chosen by the most powerful surviving members of the government. If no one with the charisma is available, the totalitarian form may not survive and the country may revert to a more representative form of government.
     
  9. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    The Holy Roman Empire was the most notable long-lasting empire in European history. In this case, the Emperor was elected by seven German princes who held the title “Elector”. I am not sure how often this resulted in father being succeeded by son – but there is at least a legitimising structure here.

    These seven were the Elector of Saxony, Elector of Brandenburg, Elector of Hannover, Elector of Bohemia, Elector of the Palatinate, Elector of Bavaria, Elector of Mainz, and Elector of Cologne.

    Oh dear! That’s eight I’ve remembered! Well, it was something like that anyway. They were around for a good many centuries, so I am sure things changed/evolved over the years.
     
  10. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Buth the Holy Roman Empire wasn't much of an empire.
     
  11. BetweenThePoints Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    68
    Invert_Nexus, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The people that would call themselves "Emperor" (BY the way, I don't think that there is really a difference between Emperor and Dictator, just because the word Emperor itself comes from the latin imperator which implies one with supreme military power and authority, usually a person who is also successful on the battlefield, but not always) are only revered the way they are because of propoganda and their deft use of it. Take Augustus, in my opinion the first man who can truly be called an "Emperor", if only because of the holy aura, the authority, or auctoritas, that he gained (not by forcing the senate to confer it upon him, interestingly enough, but through their own initiative they granted it upon him, and in his own lifetime) through his skillful use of propoganda and his reconstruction of the Roman Government, giving it the guise of returning to the old Republican form, when in fact he was changing it into a semi-dynastic monarchy.

    By the way, the Roman Emperors never referred to their office as imperator, which is where the term comes from, but rather, they called themselves the Princeps, or First Citizen. And this distinguishes them from a Dictator in that none of them actually held a Dictatorship, which was an actual office in the Republic. This, I think, shows that they themselves treated the role as a completely separate entity.
     
  12. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Beetweenthepoints:
    The hell they didn't!

    Robert Graves, whose made a career out of researching empires from the Chinese to the Romans not to mention an obsession with mythology, wrote a book about one of the last of the 'hairy Ceasers"- a stuttering 'fool' named Tiberious Claudius

    http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/bio_claudius.htm

    "I, Cladius", is by far the most endearing and researched account of imperial Rome from the transformation of it from Republic to Empire by the conceit of Tiberius.
    Who established the tradition of each successor calling themselves EMPERORS.
    Maybe you’re referring to when Rome was only a republic.

    At any rate, Graves...kicks ass.

    Vert:
    Dude.

    You brought up Pu Yi, yes ?
    I completely agree with your point, completely see it as empty propaganda based on fragile credit, but its the people, not Pu Yi, who made him the spoiled little bitch he was.
    He couldn’t even go from one room to another without an entourage of doctors and mystics following behind him.

    You posting up pictures only makes my point clearer:
    Don't they all look like Elvis and Michael Jackson fans?

    What I said:
    "those that 'loved' them were more like women with an Olson twin crush than they were Catholics counting beads off their rosaries. "- gend

    Let alone one reciting the 8 beautitudes of Christ during mass.

    There is a solemnity in worship not found in fanaticism. Fanaticism is a sloppy version of worship.
    What I meant by Olson twin crush.
    See?
     
  13. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Gendanken,

    I don't understand.
    One of the last?
    He was one of the first.
    Or do you mean that he was one of the last 'Princeps'. Because through his actions he consolidated the grip on power and made the office far more of a dictatorship than it had been previous.
    It's funny to think that he started his illustrious reign begging for his life from the laughing Praetorian Guard.

    This is interesting in that it brings to mind the division of leader and led. The leader is dependant upon having someone to lead. He is given his power by a mandate from the masses. Or by the military. Whatever the group that grants power, there is a group behind the power of the leader.

    Charles Manson.
    Would he ever have developed his Jesus Christ complex if those ignorant hippie girls hadn't worshipped him as god in the desert?
    Jim Jones.
    Reverend Moon.

    Or some 'good' guys.
    Gandhi.
    FDR.

    All of these men were place upon pedestals by those beneath them. Raised upon the shoulders of their constituents.

    It would seem to me that this is somehow entwined in with the idea of power corrupts.

    And, of course, this is what makes the first generations of a ruling dynasty so special. Because they remember what reality is like. Their descendants are born into an artificial reality. A fantasyland of simpering morons.

    And yet, the first generational rulers need to be special as they haven't been raised to expect obedience.
    Born leaders.

    I suppose they do. In fact, I was thinking the same thing in a way.
    But, don't they also resemble the pope in his popemobile?
    The pope is a rockstar.

    I see your point and once more we've come down to semantics. You've distinguished between types of worship to push fanaticism to the outer fringes of worship.

    However, think of Catholics seeing the Virgin Mary in a stain on the wall, or a glint in a window, or a shadow on the beach. These are all manifestations of fanaticism. Sloppy, yes. But worship just the same.

    If you were to ask me, I should say that the ratio of solemn worshippers to fanatic worshippers in the world and throughout time would weigh heavily on the side of fanaticism. This solemnity seems to imply a calm peacefulness. A balance. And this is something that few humans seem to truly possess.

    Anyway.
    Sloppy followers make sloppy leaders?

    Fanatics are a quick fix. It's easy to rouse the rabble into a frenzy of fanaticism. But, it's dangerous to tap into those resources because they are fickle and liable to backfire in more ways than one.

    Think of Mussolini torn apart by the mob. Hitler had himself burned to ashes to prevent a similar fate (although his fear was the Russian mob not the German one.)

    And there is also the danger of falling prey to one's own propaganda.


    Also. I've realized that I've been inconsistent here. I was going on about how it's the starting generations of rule that are the builders and don't need the holiness to obscure their ineffectiveness, but then I give examples of first generation rulers (Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon) that did cultivate an air of holiness (or rather fanaticism).

    And then you've given an example of Claudius who used propaganda and effective ruling techniques to consolidate power behind the emperor. So, even though Claudius inherited the throne, he could surely be called a first generation ruler. The only thing is that he didn't take power but was granted it by the guard, but once in office he performed in a manner to consolidate that power.
     
  14. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    http://www.historyinfilm.com/claudius/classics/12caesar/julius.htm

    Left right corner, Cladius follows after Caligula.
    He's the last to be directly descended from Augustus Ceaser, the first Roman Emperor.
    Those that followed were simply given the *title* Ceaser (the way Christ is also a title) and not direclty descendent.

    Nero follows in the line of the 12 Ceasers, which is why I said Claudius is one of the last (since I'm not sure if the man was a third cousin or a close one or ..somit)

    No.

    A-ha.
    You and your Google itch, didn't know a damn thing about Mr. Claudius til ya googled it, huh?

    Read about him- he's an incredibly interesting character. He stuttered, had a hump, walked funny and was ridiculed even by the houseboys but he was humoursly clever- something like a clumsy jester with brains.
    He also did not care for 'power' as much as he did his studies- he's one of the last known people that could both read and speak Etruscan, a lost tounge.

    His reign was one of the most cultivated, less totalitarian ones becuase he was never the power-hungry slut the rest of his family members (except Germanicus, who sounds like a hunk) were.

    And you must be kidding me to say that his office was far more of a dicatorship than the previous one- his followed Caligula's.

    Precisesly.

    So who's the parasite?

    In possession of morons.

    Which is usually the setup so this idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely remanins absolute.
    (couldn't resist)

    Which is why if you put me back in time, say 30 to 60 A.D you'd actually find me respeciting a Christian.
    Gasp!

    That's what I'm really getting at.
    When Christinity was new, the people hid or stood for their morals and had about them an air of solemnity you don't see in a Baptist quack trying to save Gendanken's Evil Soul.

    They'll wax eloquent and dramatic, quoting a psalm or lamentation they memorized on the shitter or late at night before bedtime, thinking they're actually doing something other than getting high off their own rhetoric and hot breath.

    Adn the more southern and black he or she happens to be, the more fanatic this attempt to exhibit their faith and "convert" my satanic blood.
    Fuck.You.All.
    I win.

    Bingo.

    *Edit*
    This was funny, by the way:
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2005
  15. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    Invert Nexus Haven't been to the thread for a little bit, just want to clear something up. It's old stuff, I know, but anyway...

    Your line:
    My line:
    bold type added by yours truly

    Just wanted to straighten that out. And yes, I'm a girl. Either that or my husband has suckered me into some really bizarre hallucination that we're both sharing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Ox:
    In that case, that avatar's your mugshot.
     
  17. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    LOL! It sure looks better than my driver's license photo! (Hey, I dohave Photoshop 7...)
     
  18. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Gendanken,

    I believe that Nero was actually descended from Augustus as well. And Claudius wasn't directly descended from him, but rather was only a great-nephew. Anyway, that's all trivia to the topic, I suppose. But here's a family tree. (See if you can make it out. It's a tangled mess. Damn Roman adoptions. And Claudius was banging his niece for a while there...)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperors/JulioClaudian

    And, the link you gave didn't have all of Suetonius' book. Here' s a link that does. (Also the original latin if you were Rappacini and could make it out.) The translation is somewhat different, and from glancing at the latin, I'd say more true to the original.

    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/home.html

    Bitch. Ha!
    No. I just read your link.
    I've read up on the Empire in the past, but have forgotten much of it over the years and don't think I ever read much on Claudius to begin with.

    To say the least.
    Suetonius didn't seem to mention much about his brains though. He mentions that he did spend some time on academic things early in his life when he was prevented from doing anything civic because his family despised him. And he mentions that he wrote histories. But other than that, he paints him as a bloodthirsty buffoon. Fickle in judgements. He'd have someone executed and then send an invitation for them to come to dinner the next day, forgetting that he'd had them killed.
    Stammering and stuttering would appear to be the least of his foolish traits.

    One thing for sure, Claudius isn't one of these types that cultivated a holy aura about him. And yet he was a good emperor. Somehow. Someway. He was. Almost random chance, I suppose. And despite his iniquities, he was remembered well by the people.

    Germanicus Shmermanicus. Bah.

    Anyway, Suetonius didn't describe him in the terms that your first link did. From the first link I gathered that he consolidated power in the emperor's position by clamping down on the senate and other institutions. Also in reviving the role of censorship.

    But, cultured is not exactly how Suetonius described him.

    And, just because he didn't say that he actively consolidated power, it doesn't mean he didn't say that he utilized that power arbitrarily. He was a paranoid man who greatly feared any threat to his person. He had people executed because someone had dreamed that this person had murdered him.

    He started his career trembling, afraid that he was going to follow Caligula into death, and he lived that way for years.
    Hard to be cultured with your knees shaking.

    That was the impression I gathered from the first link you posted.

    Ok. Back to the topic.

    But. Without a leader, what would the people be?
    Without Manson what would those dirty hippies in the desert ever have amounted to?
    Without Jim Jones what would his worshippers have become?
    Without FDR what would have become of the US?
    Without Gandhi what would have happened to India?
    Alexander?
    Caesar?
    Augustus?
    Elizabeth?

    Surely there are some examples of completely parasitical relationships of ruler to ruled, but even then they serve a purpose. People naturally look for leaders. For a binding principle. An emperor forms that binding principle. Cohesion for the group.

    God save the Queen!

    There is another saying. That absolute power attracts the corruptible. This implies that there are those who don't fall prey to the perils of holding power. And it is, perhaps, these people that are exemplified as Emperor. The type that truly hold some sort of holy aura about them. By not falling prey to their own propaganda.

    But, then again. It's likely that there are none who are immune to the corruption of power. If nothing else, power removes you from the base. From reality at its core. Your followers become vague and blurry. Numbers in the modern era. As Stalin said about a million deaths being not a tragedy but a statistic.


    By the way, I looked into Suetonius and found a review of his book that said that his theme was basically that Augustus was great and that the rest of the Caesars were flawed in that they let their power get to them. Augustus held himself above such things and therefore was a great man.
    http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html

    I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. This 'air of solemnity' could be a false tale handed down through history. Personally, I think that the early christians were crazy fanatics. You do know that they thought the end of the world was going to happen during the lives of those who lived at the time of Jesus. They went to the desert to die. I suppose you could call that solemn. Awaiting death.

    Bitch!!
    I suppose the problem comes from the fact that there is no 'plan' for the perfect emperor. And, in fact, there is no perfect record of any emperor. We have twisted tales. A mix of propaganda both good and bad. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and we'll likely never have the true story. Even in the case of emperors as recent as the last Czar of Russia. History corrupts just as much as power.
    Or perhaps the corruption of the powerful affects the telling of history.

    Anyway. Some emperors may have this solemn air of holiness. Some may be bumbling fools. Some may be enlightened despots. Some may be bloodthirsty fiends. Some may be party animals. While others may be chaste and circumspect. The emperors run the full gambit of human psychology. And it is in the telling of their tale that we see the imprint of the people whom they led. How they were remembered.

    Claudius, for instance, a bumbling, bloodthirsty fool who liked to write histories. He was a fickle man. Full of arbitrary judgements. And yet, the people adored him upon his death.
    Why? He wasn't holy. Was he a 'people's Emperor'?

    And Nero. Who played the fiddle while Rome burned.

    Caligula and his orgies.

    Louis XVI and Marie wanting their cake and to eat it too.

    All lies. Sort of. Just as when they were in power they were lies, so too is their rembembrance lies.

    Somewhere in the middle. There you'll find the truth.
    But I suspect you won't find the meaning of Emperor there.

    Thanky. From Stephen King, I believe. The Stand, if I remember right. It does peg Napoleon well, doesn't it?


    Oxygen,

    Sorry. My language was a bit unclear. I didn't mean to say that you said that a dictator can be an emperor. I was saying you were wrong because a dictator can choose to be an Emperor, by dictating it. However, it is up to history and the people that are left behind as to how he will be remembered.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2005
  19. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Suetonious is a lying crackwhore.

    Kidding- history is a bias. So I guess I can't say as fact that so and so was this way while the other so and so was not if all I have to go on are second hand accounts.

    Graves found Claudius’ handicaps endearing, clever, funny, and so his researched account of the man was endearing, clever, funny.
    Suetonious found Claudus’ handicaps insulting, manic, ugly and so his researched account of the man was insulting, manic, ugly.

    I read a book once that described a heated argument between 'great' philosophers Popper and Wittgenstein during a Moral Science Club meeting in King's College.
    Now, in this room could be found the biggest intellectual pricks on the planet- the kind who profess a loyalty to truth and objectivity.
    And make of that a career.

    And can you believe?
    Not one person there was able to give an account that correlated with another’s who was also there but with whose philosophy he disagreed with, and even among those of the same 'camp' the story differed- the Wittgenstein toadies had it that Wittgenstein won and marched off triumphant.

    The Popper toadies had it that Popper won and remained on the podium triumphant, while Ludwig did not marched off but sulked away a beaten dog.

    And among these objective, empirical, respectfully 'scientific' men was none other than Bertrand Russell who too could not give an unbiased account because he just so happened to be Wittgenstein’s' fuck buddy. Kidding (the Tractacus Philsophicus is in part dedicated to Russell)

    This was only a 10 minute confrontation between these two leaders in philosophy, and none of their 'objective' accolades could give an account of the event that could forego their personal philosophy disagreeing or aggreeing with the people in question.

    These intellectuals had, with all the aristocratic dedication and money and schooling pored into their philosophies for years, never transcended the everyday of two preschoolers fighting over who broke whose crayon first.

    And I'm rambling.....

    Because he apparently didn't like him. Reminds me of Roman and his distaste for yours truly.

    Poor Gendanken....
    Poison was a household word in Rome, I'm sure you know.
    And where today we have trial and error in those days you had hemlock.

    I don't blame any leader for trembling on his throne, then. Lyvia- who if I remember correctly was his aunt, wife to Tiberius, mother to Germanicus- was a tricky, powerful minx.
    Why: poison.

    Her daughters, sons and husbands feared her. The only one that is related to have gotten along beautifully with her is Caligula.
    Wonder why……

    Dirty hippies.

    Stupid hippies.

    Unemployed hippies.

    Leperous hippies.

    (jokes aside, I only asked because the answer is mutual parasitism- as you said.)
     
  20. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Speaking of Claudius and his bloodthirsty attitude, it's said that he particulary loved to expose people to wild animals. If a carpenter fucked up on a project that he had him working on... To the lions (or whatever animal they had handy). He'd even set people up. Trick them into making a mistake which he could capitalize on to sentence them to death by Animal Kingdom. Not that he needed an excuse. But at times he appears to have been somewhat less arbitrary than other times.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2005
  21. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    Yes...?

    I don't know.
    Perhaps next time come up with believable excuses for flashing around your respective knowledges of history.
    There's no point to any of this. You've made a few half assed attempts to pretend there's a signifigance behind the data you're presenting, but you failed to committ to those attempts because they were so boring and uninspired.
    It's obvious neither of you care about how seriously people took their worship of hirihoto or whatever. You've just been trawling for some reason to justify this pissing contest, but it's been going on too long and you've clearly got nothing.
    All you can do now is stuff as many "only I know this secret about caesar's zany antics" tidbits into this crumbling eyesore before it dies.
    You're screaming "I also know this about that!" at an audience which is peeling away from the theatre.
    It's getting kind of awkward and embarrassing, the mist that was once surrounding this discussion is clearing to reveal you 2 jerking eachother off.

    Or maybe it could use more animals. You know, sharks continuously grow knew teeth throughout their whole life, ha, imagine that?
    You'd be all toothfilled and... sharks tooths

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Look you.

    Everything was fine and well until one, it was pointed out that Gambit Star said the same thing I did- 'course how the devil would I know. I don't read hisherit's posts.

    Two, Invert starts making it seem as if though *I* think these royals are holy as opposed to the people.
    Butchered reading skills aside, I'm going to correct it.
    Derail.

    Three, there's a clear distinction between the materialism of despots and the divinity of royalty.
    Four, be familiar with what you're talking about and if not SHUT UP.
    Invert did it with Claudius, and now you're doing it with a thread you had nothing to do with.
    Five, if I weren't more obsessive about science I'd actually write historical fiction.

    Just like Graves.
    And?

    Kola cubs eat koala shit.
    So?
     
  23. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Aww. Come on, Goofy. No reason to go deleting posts...

    Anyway.

    What exactly does this have to do with anything?
    An innocuous comment, nothing major. Your viewpoint just happened to coincide with a poster that was immediately prior to your post.
    I don't see how this made things go not fine.

    Butchered reading skills, my ass. However you personally look at the royals is of no consequence to the discussion in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it was you that put forth the argument that the difference between Royalty and Dictators was an air of holiness. Regardless of who it is that sees them this way, it was your argument, right?

    And how was the thread derailed by this? We went on a discussion about the nature of holiness in regards to Emperors and leaders cultivating such for the manipulation of populace. We then went in to history and bias.

    Where did the thread get derailed?
    Some of the things on Claudius may have been a touch off-topic but I think they all fed back into the topic rather well at the end. We quashed the idea of this holy aura rather soundly. Placing it firmy in the realm of propaganda.

    And we also led to the discussion of mutual parasitism. How leader and led each influence the other. Feed the other. Create the other.

    Where was the derailing?

    Oh. From the viewpoint of someone who doesn't have the patience to read and actually understand what is being said. Dr. Lou complains that we're not interesting enough for him and we should all shape up for his entertainment. I bet this is much more entertaining for him.

    Look! We're even talking abou the animal kingdom now.
    Hey. The lion is the king of beasts you know. His holy aura assures his reign to all the lionesses in the pride.

    I thought we'd ruled that out.
    Maybe the discussion isn't quite done yet then.

    What the fuck are you talking about?
    You posted a link.
    I commented on the link.
    You posted another link.
    I commented on the other link.
    Time to stop reading links, I suppose?


    Lou,

    I hope that you actually meant to say something that every 2 year old in the country who's watched Shark Week on the discovery channel knows. Surely you don't think that this knowledge is obscure or impressive in the least...
    Surely.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2005

Share This Page