There's a big difference, Lou. It doesn't matter what you think of our 'obscure' facts or whatever. We weren't in here saying things for your benefit. We were working out an idea between ourselves and any who wished to participate. We weren't trying to 'impress' any 'audience' which seems to be a major part of your motivation apparently. But were just discussing for the sake of discussing. But, go on and take your bow. The audience is watching Doctor. And you sure don't want to let them down, now do you?
Obscure??! Any fucking body can pick up a copy of "I,Claudius" and read it in his sleep. You'll learn more in that one book than any 'educated' mummy can teach in its classroom. A retard- even Lou- can read it in a day or two. (that rhymed) READ IT. That said, want obscure?? You got it: boil your urine, and you isolate a crusty ring of sodium phosphate around the bowl. You then add any liquid to that crust so long as its low in ph (lemon, ideal), isolating pure phosphorous. Turn off the lights, and ta-ta it glows.
Gendanken, You might notice that I've placed quotation marks around the word obscure. Thus, I was saying that they weren't obscure at all. In fact, everything that I was saying about Claudius came directly from the links you've posted. So. Yes. They're very obscure. And. Speaking of "I, Claudius" I happened across a page somewhere that spoke of Graves and his fictional treatment of Claudius. It said that Graves' book influenced people's views on Claudius for a long time but has now begun to be pushed aside in favor of a more brutalistic viewpoint of the man. Unfortunately... I lost the page. I suppose I could dig through my history but it would take a while. You do make it sound like an interesting read though. It'll definitely go on the list. Edit: Here it is. Down at the bottom in the Conclusion. http://www.roman-emperors.org/claudius.htm
Actually Gendanken, Imperator is a military title, more denoting the power of imperium which the emperors possessed. In fact, Generals could hold this power in their capacity as field commanders, as could Governors. The emperors of Rome always tried to mantain the illusion of republican government, and through that structure they ruled with dictatorial powers. It was only towards the end of the empire when they began to not even bother with the illusion. Claudius maintained this illusion, as had Tiberius and Augustus. Caligula didn't even try, and neither did Nero, nor many other emperors, and those in fact were the ones whose reigns didn't last very long. The emperors of Rome made it a point never to exercise arbitrary power and to always make the people, and especially the Senate, feel as if they did not live in a monarchy. They never used imperator as a title. It's just that the word is where we get the word emperor from.
An emperor may have the same power of a dictator, and in some cases (most of the Russian Tsars, Bokassa, Claudius, Nero) are synonymus, the title "emperor" usually defines his/her domain as an Empire, sometimes multiethnic sometimes not, and with an assumption that none is higher than God to the Emperor. In a dictatorship, especially in a fascist/national socialist or a communist system, there is no God, and religion is sometimes banned and places of worship closed down. An Empire and an Emperor/Empress usually has some sort of organized state religion, a divine right belief, and a manifest destiny to become a great power. An Imperial monarch is also the head of the state church, and is also a above a King/High King and all below the King/Queen ranking in the social order. But, sometimes they are synonymus and colloquial terms. In short, there are a few key differences between the two, but are mostly similar.
