Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is not fan club for him but he isn't universally referred to as an evil leader on the same level of war criminals and evil dictators of modern history. Serial killers are a bit glorified in popular culture in movies, tv, and even some documentaries.
There is not fan club for him but he isn't universally referred to as an evil leader on the same level of war criminals and evil dictators of modern history. Serial killers are a bit glorified in popular culture in movies, tv, and even some documentaries.
Theres a massive difference between historical leaders who killed in the context of wars and conflict vs antisocial criminals who engaged in mass murder.
Leaders didnt engage in violence alone, they had to convince multitudes of followers that its the right thing to do. In other words they must have had a case that large sections of their society agreed with which justified their actions. Whether they are seen in a positive or negative light today does indeed often depend on whether they won or lost or even more importantly whether the principles underlying their actions prevailed or not.
In contrast, antisocial murderers tend to act alone or in pairs or very small groups. They generally act with personal motives seeking sexual gratification, financial gain etc. and do so in secrecy and under threat of capture. They do so knowing that their actions are not justifiable to society at-large.
Terrorists occupy a gray area between those types as they may enjoy the approval and support of significant numbers of people in their society, yet may also act as lone wolves condemned by the vast majority of people. Whether they end up becoming legitimized as leaders and even heroes tends to depend on the success of their actions and even more so on whether they’re able to convince enough people that their actions were justified by their ends.
Caligula and Nero receive nothing bad press. Julius Caesar is in the Top 10 list of Most Famous of all Time. He led a unique life: Conquered France - then known as the Gauls - against simply overwhelming odds. But without the official permission of Rome. The Senate voted unanimously to punish him. He came back militarily - crossing the Rubicon was the point of no return. His main threat fled to Greece(?) and assembled an army twice the size of Caesars. Caesar chased him and scored an amazing military victory against the renowned general who had defeated the slave rebellion led by Spartacus. Caesar granted himself absolute power while the Senate chafed. They all participated in stabbing him to death.
Caesar's alliance with the powerful Queen Cleopatra allowed him to become the most powerful person on the planet - by far. His conquest of France was very popular - military conquest was how Roman leaders gained stature. His leadership of Rome transformed the Republic into an Empire led by one military dictator after another for the most part. Caesar changed the world much like the latter day Bushbarians. https://www.amazon.com/Bush-Cheney-R...s%2C222&sr=8-1
School shooters? Depressed psychopaths taking petrochemicals that make them completely apathetic to the lives of others. Have nothing to do with Roman leaders. The line of reasoning that attempts to compare the two is unquestionably spurious.
Take Julius Caesar or Nero, or Caligula for instance, they were mass murdering insane persons yet so many admire and revere him, no different from the crazy mass murdering psychopaths that exist today, like the Columbine shooters, or the Virginia Tech shooter. Why is it that just because they did what they did thousand years ago or so we view their actions as in anyway justifiable?
Lets break down this original thread -
-Julius Caesar was neither insane or a mass murderer. Certainly people were killed under his rule, he was a military general and he lead many campaigns, but he is not particularly known for his brutality given the times. Caesar developed a sort of cult of personality during and after his rule that survives to this day, that and his significant impact on western civilization are why he may be admired today.
-Nero and Caligula- Your conclusion is wrong on these two - these guys are never portrayed in a good light, some of it may be unfair, so I see them neither admired or revered in popular culture. I doubt there were really insane, who knows, but they both had enemies that ensured their legacy was not to paint them in a good picture. Caligula in particular was known for brutality and perversion, and that is how he is portrayed today.
Comparing any historical figure to the mass murderers today is just wrong on so many levels. No you can't put these acts in one neat orderly box for classification. You have to consider the intent, the motive, and the historical context. In Caesar's case killings occurred during acts of war or as punishment for this or that transgression, per the rules of that age of history. In some historical cases, such as the acts of genocide by Hitler's Nazi Germany, once needs additional criteria. Still, there is no comparison to these school shooters who apparently have no other motive than a psychotic level of hate and the pleasure of killing.
Why is it that we admire and even revere mass murders from the past?
Because they force people to admire them. They construct statues and monuments to their greatness and force historians to write history to paint themselves in the manner which appeases them. They alter history to their own benefit. Historically people were afraid to combat the status quo and thus the image these monsters created of themselves has thus gone unchallenged.
Because they force people to admire them. They construct statues and monuments to their greatness and force historians to write history to paint themselves in the manner which appeases them. They alter history to their own benefit. Historically people were afraid to combat the status quo and thus the image these monsters created of themselves has thus gone unchallenged.
Who forces them exactly - Ceaser's ghost comes down to a historian 100 years after his death and haunts them until they write good things about them? No, that is a vast over-simplification.
Their is bias in history sure, the winners write the history so it is said. Ancient history particularly is unreliable, with contradictory accounts from various sources. Even a winner has distractors. Ceasar was the founder of his Empire that is confirmed - of course he was admired in history, and he gets a salad named after his (well, maybe not that). But what about Nero and Caligula? I don't exactly see many books portraying them in a positive light, quite the opposite. If anything, there transgressions and sins may be overstated in history.
There are histories that deal a lot with conflict & confrontation (Thutmoses I & III).
There are others that mostly deal with trade & travel (Ibn Batutta & Leo Africanus), though they too are not devoid of mentions of conflicts.
At least nowadays, to a certain extent than in the past, more people are able to choose what aspect they want to research & study.
So again, pick a flava.
Last edited by kovert; 04-25-2019 at 01:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
