What Roman Emperor Does Bush Most Resemble?

[JDPriestly]

[Robeson]

1. I've seen similarities with Caracalla. Of course, there are others...

Caracalla was the son of an Emperor, as is Bush. Also, both of their fathers were, in general, militarily successful. Here are some excerpts of the biography of Caracalla from the site De Imperatoribus Romanis: when Caracalla came to office, the Empire "saw a flurry of administrative reforms under the young emperor's leadership". We've certainly seen that. Bush spends everyday trying to eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal. In addition, "Caracalla spent little time in Rome". Crawford Ranch ring a bell?

Also, "Caracalla made a journey to the East in preparation for a war against the Parthians. Along the way, the emperor displayed an increasing fascination and identification with Alexander the Great." Parthia, of course, is roughly modern Iran. Which Bush and his cadre certainly raddle sabres with. And it looks as though there may be a touch of megalomania involved with both....

Again, "instability to the entire region, and Caracalla wished to take advantage of that instability to increase Roman control. Osroene was annexed in 213, but an attempt in the same year to take over Armenia backfired. Caracalla's campaigns in the East seemed designed to harass the Parthians more than anything else. In 215, Caracalla suspended plans to invade Parthia". Instability in the Middle East, is certainly familiar to modern times, too, along with a Western Imperial power wanting to take advantage. And the campaigns seemed intended to harass the Parthians, i.e. Iranians, as Bush is doing now.... It even gets better, "The following year the emperor led his troops into Mesopotamia". Yes, modern Iraq...

Now, here comes the divine guidance..."The emperor visited Alexandria for intellectual and religious reasons, staying at the Serapeum and being present at the temple's sacrifices and cultural events. Earlier, during the German war, the emperor visited the shrine of the Celtic healing-god Grannus. Caracalla also visited the famous temple of Asclepius in Pergamum and fully participated in its program, which involved sleeping inside the temple compound and having his dreams interpreted." There certainly is a similarity there. Both were/are religious fundamentalist, whose God/Gods spoke to them and revealed his divine strategy.....

And the aftermath...."Some of the reforms, especially the pay raise for soldiers, would prove burdensome for future emperors.....the changes brought about in the little more than five years of Caracalla's sole rule would have long-lasting implications throughout the empire for generations to come." Lets see, excessive military spending and a draining of the treasury....? We all certainly see that trainwreck happening in front of us, too.

So, in summary. Both were sons of Emperors, i.e. nepotism, with no doubt, a feeling of entitlement. Both didn't like staying in the capital. Both initiated reforms almost immediately upon sitting on the throne. Both were militarily obsessed with the Middle East, in order to take advantage of political turmoil in the region. Both tried to bluff Iran, while trying to seize Iraq. Both were religious fanatics, who took their directions from their Gods. Both, in a short time, wrecked their Empires for generations to come.

As a footnote to Caracalla, after his assasination in 217 AD, the 3rd century saw a string of military leaders, as the military directly took over the reigns of government. Also, the Roman Empire began its steady decline, almost immediately after Caracalla. Devaluation of the currency, and inflation ran rampant throughout the next 70 some odd years, until Diocletian brought a semblance of economic stability. However, the Empire was never again economically as strong as it was, and the decline really didn't stop until the Western half of the Empire fell away in the 5th century. Caracalla can not take all blame for its eventual decline. The seeds had started shortly before him. But his father had stablized the Empire, and it was at a crossroads. Had he been a good Emperor, the Empire could have been set on the right path again. However, he was not, and it went over the edge into decline. One lousy ruler can have a long lasting effect.

[JDPriestly]

2. Fascinating. Thanks.

I'm bookmarking your response.

[NYC]

8. Caracalla was assassinated?

Interesting.

[Old_Fart]

3. Augustus

Made you look.

Caracalla along with Diocletian funded construction of massive public baths. When you look at the semicircular arch developed by the etruscans we need to thank the both of them for their design.

[Robeson]

4. Yes, it was nice that Caracalla built some baths....

...but he was an undisputed tyrant.

[Astarho]

5. Phocas (602-610)

Technically a Byzantine emperor. He was a usurper who was at first popular because he lowered taxes. Also nearly lost the empire under his reign. Supposedly he was mad as well.

His military including his own son-in-law defected to Heraclius when he took the city.

[Lefty48197]

6. Nero. Something about fiddling while Rome burned...

.

[onager]

7. Didius Julianus...

...a wealthy but apparently not too bright aristocrat who literally won the title of "Emperor" in an auction held by the Praetorian Guard:

Once installed as Emperor, he had the head of the Praetorians arrested and executed, so it can't be said that nothing good came of his reign. However, that was about it.

Three provincial governors (Pescennius Niger of Syria, Clodius Albinus of Britain, and Septimius Severus of Upper Pannonia) answered the call for someone to rescue Rome from the shame of having an emperor who had bought his title at public auction. By far the closest was Septimius Severus, and he quickly mobilized and headed south toward Rome.

Didius Julianus responded by sending the Praetorians out to build defenses around Rome, but they weren't up to all that hard work, especially since it had become clear that Didius Julianus couldn't pay them what he'd promised.

He tried assassination, but Severus was too well defended. He even offered to Severus a joint emperorship. But Severus saw that there was no reason to settle for half the cookie when he could have it all, and probably without a fight.

As it turned out, he was right. The Senate sentenced Didius Julianus to death on 1 June, naming Severus the new emperor. The Praetorians deserted him, and he was alone when the officer sent to carry out the execution order arrived.

It is reported that he did not die bravely, being in tears and asking the questions, "But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?" It's not recorded whether anyone tried to answer him.

http://www.electriciti.com/garstang/emperors/empforsale.htm

[lakemonster11]

11. I couldn't believe Bush let anyone

take a picture of him with a guitar during Katrina.

Plus, Nero liked to play dress-up.

[gulfcoastliberal]

9. Caligula

Maybe Commodus a close 2nd.

[lakemonster11]

10. I was thinking Caligula, too.

- Caligula thought he was a god and that the gods spoke to him.

- Caligula named drinking buddies and cronies (even Incitatus, his horse) to positions of power.

- Caligula started wars but never fought in them---in fact turning tail and running when some soldiers played a practical joke on him by pretending they were about to be overrun by the enemy.

- "Caligula" = "Little Boots" (an appropriate nickname for a wannabe rancher/cowboy)

- Caligula loved chariot racing (NASCAR's precursor?).