Skip to comments.Claudius vs Obama
Posted on 11/24/2012 5:28:20 PM PST by Indy Pendance
How evil are the two.
Comments are expected.
Okay, I’ll bite. Claudius who? There was a Roman emperor names Cladius, but he wasn’t evil. Or do you mean Caligula?
Claudius? The Roman Emperor? He was far from perfect, but I wouldn’t call him evil. He was a genius too.
Obama, on the other hand....
I don’t know Claudius but I do know Obama and he is the personification of evil. He HATES whites, Jews, and anyone who disagrees with his marxist/socialist agenda. He must be stopped. If there’s any armed rebellion, he will declare martial law and he’s just waiting to do it to take YOUR gun.
Research Claudius. Extrapolate and confirm.
Claudius was an idiot...but Obama is pure evil (well at least he is a muslim who is obliged to destroy all that is pure).
And you didn't even provide a link to Claudius (well there it is...that spotted link).
Research Claudius. Extrapolate and confirm.
“Are you confusing Caligula with Claudius.”
No, I’m not Claudius is an idiot, so is obama. The similarities are there. A roman emperor and the ‘leader of the free world’. Which person is going to destroy the republic?
......Claudius is an idiot
I’m guessing you never saw “I, Claudius” or even read the book. If you had, you’d know that [the fictional] Cladius was quite wise, but he played the fool—which is why he survived to become Emperor. And the real one had a pretty good record of leading the Empire.
At least Claudius was a Roman who cared about keeping Rome great. In short, there’s no comparison with Obama.
That said, the parallel between Claudius is tenuous...but the parallel between Obama and Caligula is profound.
I do appreciate your drawing parallels between the present and classical Rome...congrats on that.
Keep up the good work.
And Happy Thanksgiving.
$5, $10, $12.10, $50, $100. Every donation is important.
Please Donate today!
Ideally, we need every member and regular user to contribute to keep Free Republic up and running strong.
Click the link above to donate via Credit Card or PayPal on our secure server or mail checks to:
Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9774 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you all very much for your continuing participation and support!!
Claudius' love life was unusual for an upper-class Roman of his day, in that he was the only one out of the first 15 emperors not to take men or boys, but only women as lovers
Uh-oh... comparison might falter here...
He was not a good guy, but apparently the people around him was worse.
I didn't get the OP's point, but why insult him so.
Have you never embarrassed yourself...or are you just unwilling to admit such?
Claudius was not an idiot. He was actually a genius.
actually i’ve always thought the similarities between obama and damien from the omen are the ones that scare me. they both came from hell. although we’re pretty sure who damien’s parents are. not so sure about the other.
Is that your opinion or that of Robert Graves who wrote “I Claudius”?
I think a better parallel would be between Nero and Obama, rather than Caligula and Obama. Caligula was likely insane and a pervert—and he flaunted both traits. I don’t think Obama is either; nor do I think he’s stupid.
I do think that, at his core, he’s a Marxist who hates America and anything he perceives as ‘colonial’. And, to the extent he can get away with it, he’s trying to weaken the Country and remake it in his own image.
Ditto what you said.
Well, Claudius conquered Britain and laid the foundation for one of the world’s great civilizations, in addition to Mauritania, Thrace and Lycia.
Not bad for an idiot.
Jeremiah Wright was well-known for attracting to his church young, upwardly mobile gay men who he could meld with unattractive but interesting young black women (to provide beards for said young "down low" black men).
It is apparently well-known in Chicago that this was the situation with Obama and Michelle (Wright's program was called, well, "the Program").
Anyone who thinks Obama is a straight male needs to get out more (and not getting out enough ain't a bad thing).;-)
I do not study or research Roman leaders, I’ll study Christ all day long, to study ancient Roman leaders is a waste of time.
Today I went for an “American bald eagle” tattoo on my arm. But the guy used too much black shadeing so I stopped him from putting in the brown, thinking it would just make it darker.
So now I have pretty much a black eagle.
Have I ever embarrassed myself? Sure. But I learn from my mistakes.
The thing about this particular thread is that it was presented without context. Anyone who did any research on Claudius (fictional or real) at all would realize that while he may have been disfigured, but he wasn’t an idiot. My comment stemmed from the fact that Indy Pendance challenged us to research a thread he posted when he clearly didn’t do so himself.
I think one could draw parallels between Obama and some Roman emperors. But I think Claudius is a poor choice for comparison.
Claudius was the best Roman Emperor of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty after Augustus.
If you want to compare Obama to the Julio-Claudians, Nero or Gaius (Caligula) would be far better candidates than Claudius.
I tinks he is a idiot for believing that communism is the cure for global ills.
Communism, like islam (another one of his belief structures held dear), has never produced anything good.
He is also awfully short sighted and a idiot in wanting to remove America from the global stage.
That said...I would like an eagle or an American flag or a cross.
Are you talking about Claudius the Julio-Claudian emperor, Claudius Gothicus the emperor who reigned from 268 to 270, or Hamlet’s father?
I am 47 and was called old by them.
That’s the opinion of every reputable historian of Rome over the last 300 years or so.
Have you ever read ANY modern work on Roman history at all? Ever read about Claudius’ reform of the legal system? His attempts at orthographic reform? Anything?
How about his military reforms? C. Thomas, “Claudius and the Roman Army Reforms”, in: Historia, volume 53 (2004).
Claudius’ legal reforms were substantial. He greatly modified the law of treasons, suppressed informers, and checked the use of torture. He tried to restore the right of legislation to the plebs, and revived the ancient plebiscita. But he soon found, as others had found before him, that this was unworkable, and all his important legislation had to be enacted by means of Senatm consulta.
Various important public works were carried out during the reign of Claudius. The two great aqueducts, which Gaius must have the credit of commencing, were finished by Claudius. A new harbour was constructed at Ostia, which proved of the greatest utility; and efforts were made on a considerable scale to drain the Fucine Lake, though the works were not permanently successful.
During the reign of Claudius the conquest of Britain was seriously undertaken. The subjugation of the Britons, who lived in the ends of the earth, had been in the minds of many. Julius Caesar had twice attempted the conquest; Augustus had twice prepared for it; Tiberius had declared it necessary; even Gaius had set out on the expedition, though he got no further than Boulogne. Claudius determined that the work should be accomplished. Perhaps the reputed wealth of the island attracted him, more likely he was willing that his name should be associated with the adding of another province to the empire.
“Obama who is nothing but a lame figurehead”
You win the contest. “A lame figurehead” — Guess the poster was comparing Obama to Claudius in I, Claudius. But then who knows what the poster meant.
Claudius was a decent Roman Emperor, considering what he did for the Empire as a whole. Obama, on the other hand, is not quite as good as many Roman Emperors were regarding the better of America.
Three Things I can think of are these:
1) Mercernary Support: Early Roman Emperors were very strict, and very pressing, to get conquered peoples and aliens to assimilate into the Roman Empire by a path to citizenship. In the United States, there’s little reason to be an alien and want to also be a citizen. In fact, the propaganda goes the other way, don’t be subject or involved as a full-fledged citizen or tested/educated about being a U.S. Citizen to prove it The scary part is that getting people to be useful and yet not citizens carries parallels to the reliance on mercernary support, which allowed for the native Roman rulership to get overthrown, for something as trivial as not having the gold to pay the tribal mercernary armies. The fact that some politicians, and possibly sides of the political spectrum have set up laws allowing for such free benefits whether with or without citizenship will allow all sorts of corruption, and weakening. Obama’s military policy also involves indirect fighting, a problem for the Romans, because like them, the military policy uses mercernary and proxy forces, and puts into office people just as much a tyrant and enemy as the previous ruler, if not worse. Morsi in Egypt is already proving that overthrowing Mubarak wasn’t much of an improvement.
2) Earlier Emperors, including Claudius, had a genuine concern about trade, and controlling what comes in, and what comes out of the Roman Empire, they were also actually limited by a budget that depended on tangible materials (precious metals) Our economy doesn’t, and therefore is subject to difficulties from deficit, and potentially severe inflation. It’s all a question of when it really kicks in.
Claudius probably suffered from birth defects. He apparently twitched, drooled and farted uncontrollably, which put a serious crimp in his social life.
But it is not likely these affected his intellect. Before becoming Emperor he was a well-respected historian, writing a history of the Etruscans and the only known multi-volume history of Carthage, which unfortunately have not survived. However, there are also no surviving claims that these were not useful works. He was shunted aside in the scramble for power largely because he started writing a history of the Civil Wars that was less than entirely laudable of Augustus.
Idiots don’t write respected works of history. At least not without ghost-writers, which seem to be a modern invention.
All of his relatives had died and/or been poisoned or murdered, notably his brother Germanicus, in the faction fights of the imperial family. It is likely he exaggerated his disabilities and functioned as something of a court jester to his nephew Emperor Gaius Caligula.
When Caligula and his wife and daughter were murdered, Claudius was the only survivor of the family and was acclaimed emperor primarily for lack of an alternative. He was probably the best emperor of his family after Augustus and possibly Tiberius, although this was admittedly a pretty low bar to jump.
The portrayal of Claudius in I, Claudius by Robert Graves and in its BBC dramatization is compelling. But it should be remembered that this characterization is a heavily fictionalized retelling, and is not necessarily historical truth.
Robert Graves' novels about Claudius draw heavily from Suetonius' Life of Claudius, I think.
All the surviving historians of the time appear to have lied and invented stuff with a freedom and enthusiasm modern propagandists can only envy.
The notion that historians are supposed to limit themselves to what actually happened is a fairly modern one.
The “histories” of the time were probably influenced by the Roman law courts, which were a free-for-all where both sides lied and invented evidence with the greatest freedom. There was nothing even vaguely resembling modern rules of evidence. Victory went not to the side that proved its case logically, based on the evidence, but to the one that most effectively blackened the opposition’s character.
These “historians,” however, especially Suetonius, are highly entertaining.
Well, in the sense that both require a loyal praetorian guard to protect them they are similar.
But really, Claudius was declared emperor of Rome after Caligula was assassinated by the praetorian guard. He was not evil like Caligula (who was insane).
He wrote a history of Augustus’ reign that caused him grief, and he wrote major works which included an Etruscan history and eight volumes on Carthaginian history, as well as an Etruscan Dictionary and a book on dice playing.
So, in that way he was waaay smarter than obamao, and is generally regarded as a decent ruler for his time.
obamao on the other hand, a dangerous narcissist with extremely limited abilities other than driving the alinsky marxist destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Evil incarnate— stupid, dumb angry evil.
Islam is a political system cloaked as a religion and O bows to it
Only one I can compare him to is The Serpent
No study is a waste of time. Furthermore, it is thanks to a Roman leader that the western world became Christianized. And the mother of that leader is a saint.
I love the way you think.
Claudius wasn’t evil.
That said...don't be a smart ass...the world of knowledge and history is rather large.
I asked an honest question...you respond in a way that indicates not an inclination to spread knowledge...but to insult anyone less knowledgeable than yourself on this subject.
I await your response...but I think I have seen your character already. Prove me wrong.
“I am not an authority on Roman history or Claudius (though I am familiar with the canals constructed to drain Lago Fucino)...but my comment was based on a memory of Tacitus. He thought Claudius was an idiot.”
Irrelevant. I don’t care that you know you’re not an authority. I also don’t care about some vague memory you have from Tacitus. Any authority on Roman history can tell you if you want to know about Tacitus and Claudius you read Miriam Griffan’s “Claudius in Tacitus”, The Classical Quarterly, NS, Vol. 40, No. 2 (1990), pp. 482-501.
“That said...don’t be a smart ass...the world of knowledge and history is rather large.”
First, I wasn’t a smart ass. I asked you some pertinent questions - none of which you answered (which tells me something already). Second, history IS vast. That’s why you have to read. Third, you wrote to me, “Is that your opinion or that of Robert Graves who wrote I Claudius?” Now, who was being a smartass again?
“I asked an honest question...you respond in a way that indicates not an inclination to spread knowledge...but to insult anyone less knowledgeable than yourself on this subject.”
No, I don’t think you asked an honest question. The very fact that you couched it as a choice between A - “Is that your opinion” or B - “or that of Robert Graves” shows you’re already discounting the possibility that there are numerous reputable historians who attest to Claudius’ genius when in fact there are. Thus, you can take your sanctimonious whine of “don’t be a smart ass” and shove it up there right next to your sciolism. (Look it up in the dictionary. We both know you don’t know what that word means.)
“I await your response...but I think I have seen your character already. Prove me wrong.”
You have proved yourself to be wrong:
1) I’m right on Claudius and all modern, reputable historians agree.
2) Your hypocrisy (”Is that your opinion or that of Robert Graves who wrote I Claudius?” and “don’t be a smart ass”) shows much more about your character than anything I’ve written shows about mine.
3) This exchange will annoy you greatly - because you know I’m right. I, on the other hand, am not bothered by it in the least - because I am right.
LOL...don't flatter yourself.
Oh, I wasn’t. And I was still right.
OCPD. Check it out...might do you some good.
You posted a non-working link. Figures. You’re whole effort in this thread has been a failure so why should you post a link that actually works, right?
But thank goodness, you were not wrong. Whew, dodge another bullet, you did.
And don't be discouraged...there is hope. But you actually need to study, really study...and this will take courage on your part.
And good luck to you.