Насчет Клавдия сейчас думают, что он был великим человеком
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Не знаю.

История это нарратив.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

пиздец ты тупое

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

хорошее

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Клавдий на самом деле трагическая фигура,
философ-император и труженик, от нежелания проявлять
жестокость постоянно лавировал между влиятельными
группами юлие-клавдиев, которые ели друг
друга поедом, в результате же вынужденно уничтожил
толпу персонажей, которых не хотел уничтожать
(включая собственную жену Мессалину) и закончил
жизнь, отравленный другой женой, которая сразу
же изгнала (а потом и уничтожила) все его потомство.

наверное, нужно было их всех просто уничтожить,
как Нерон в итоге и сделал, уничтожив свою семью
более-менее поголовно

Еще Клавдий был нереально продуктивным писателем,
автором истории и словаря этрусков, истории Карфагена
и кучи прочих текстов, ныне утерянных

The main ancient historians Tacitus, Suetonius (in The
Twelve Caesars), and Cassius Dio all wrote after the last
of the Flavians had gone. All three were senators or
equites. They took the side of the Senate in most
conflicts with the Princeps, invariably viewing him as
being in the wrong. This resulted in biases, both
conscious and unconscious. Suetonius lost access to the
official archives shortly after beginning his work. He was
forced to rely on second-hand accounts when it came to
Claudius (with the exception of Augustus' letters, which
had been gathered earlier). Suetonius painted Claudius as
a ridiculous figure, belittling many of his acts and
attributing the objectively good works to his retinue.[96]

Tacitus wrote a narrative for his fellow senators and
fitted each of the emperors into a simple mold of his
choosing.[97] He wrote of Claudius as a passive pawn and
an idiot in affairs relating to the palace and often in
public life. During his censorship of 47–48 Tacitus allows
the reader a glimpse of a Claudius who is more
statesmanlike (XI.23–25), but it is a mere
glimpse. Tacitus is usually held to have 'hidden' his use
of Claudius' writings and to have omitted Claudius'
character from his works.[98] Even his version of
Claudius' Lyons tablet speech is edited to be devoid of
the Emperor's personality. Dio was less biased, but seems
to have used Suetonius and Tacitus as sources. Thus the
conception of Claudius as the weak fool, controlled by
those he supposedly ruled, was preserved for the ages.

(Reply to this) (Parent)