How bad was Nero really? - new BM exhibition

[Justin Swanton]

Concerning James II, I imagine that he was in favour of tolerance of Catholics not because he was in favour of tolerance, but because he was Catholic.

I find it interesting that James' detractors all run him down because of what they supposed his motives were or what they supposed he intended to do rather than what he actually did. Reading the Wiki article on him (hardly a partisan account) I can't see that he did anything wrong other than have a roving eye for the ladies.

I don't suppose many of the various contenders for the Roman Imperial throne had any particular agenda of justice and welfare. I don't suppose they had any agenda at all, other than attaining power for themselves, and I don't suppose one of them could have given an acocunt of why they wanted power

Marcus Aurelius?

"From my brother Severus, to be kind and loving to all them of my house and family; by whom also I came to the knowledge of Thrasea and Helvidius, and Cato, and Dio, and Brutus. He it was also that did put me in the first conceit and desire of an equal commonwealth, administered by justice and equality; and of a kingdom wherein should be regarded nothing more than the good and welfare of the subjects."

[Erpingham]

With apologies to Douglas Adams

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made Emperor should on no account be allowed to do the job.

[RichT]

I can't see that he did anything wrong other than have a roving eye for the ladies.

And so alienating his subjects that they kicked him out, thus rendering his plans for indulgence moot, whatever his motives might have been. (And I don't know what his motives were; but anyway we are a couple of hundred years out of period.)

Marcus Aurelius?

Ah, the one sane Emperor. 

[Duncan Head]

Marcus Aurelius?

Ah, the one sane Emperor. 

The Meditations were his self-medication for depression - proto-CBT.

[Prufrock]

If one were to attempt in eighty years to reconstruct the details of a modern leader's contribution on the basis of a few celebrity tweets, the odd facebook rant and a couple of incomplete Guardian articles, you probably wouldn't be too far off Suetonius!

[Jim Webster]

I think the first job of being king is to produce an heir.

Second is to not die until the heir is old enough to succeed.

Third would be to keep being king after that.

The avoidance of civil war and succession crisis beats everything else

I have the notion that the first job of a king is to rule his subjects with justice and see to their welfare. But that's just me. 

Actually avoiding civil war and a succession crisis is ruling your subjects with justice and seeing to their welfare

I suspect that achieving these was to meet the gold standard of Kings. Just as the ability to accept you've lost an election and step down is the gold standard of democratic politicians, for much the same reason, it avoids civil war and succession crises 

[Mark G]

Exactly, Jim.

Once you have a mechanism for transfer of power without succession crisis or civil war, other things become more important, but if you can't guarantee that transition then avoiding it is the only thing that matters.

Consider what state America would be in if November had gone a different way.  All those armed civilians, those states with army depots, those governors claiming legitimacy, those state assemblies exercising their rights.  Those neighbours prepared to intervene to ensure their preferred form of stability...

[Erpingham]

Exactly, Jim.

Once you have a mechanism for transfer of power without succession crisis or civil war, other things become more important, but if you can't guarantee that transition then avoiding it is the only thing that matters.

Consider what state America would be in if November had gone a different way.  All those armed civilians, those states with army depots, those governors claiming legitimacy, those state assemblies exercising their rights.  Those neighbours prepared to intervene to ensure their preferred form of stability...

I think we have enough historical accounts of anarchic power transfers to avoid  needing to use modern ones.