TheRealMafoo said:
Just something to think about when looking at political history from more then a few hundred years ago... The winners write the history. Any leader in those days could have been a Stalin. If Stalin had gotten to write our history, in 1000 years people would look back on him as a great leader. In fact the greatest of our time. So, I try and take all that really old political stuff with a grain of salt. |
Actually, compared to all other Roman emperors he was a pretty decent guy.
You also can't compare leaders of 2000 years ago with leaders of 50 years ago. By todays standards Augustus would be a very harsh ruler. Doesn't mean I can't think of him as a great guy. Most of the great guys in history are mass murderers like Caesar(not Augustus, the real one), Alexander the Great, etc
Caesar killed of 25% of population in Gaul, yet a lot of people still admire him today. There was not a single Roman who thought of Caesar as a mass murderer. They simply didn't care about the well being of the "barbaroi"
If you're going to compare leaders then you need to take time into account as it's really important.
