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.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Claudius+legal+reforms&sig=q59oeMvV-m6GsdlZThX-LBWeBkY&ei=ToGxUNm8H_PK0AHZk4HIAw&id=x0o5AQAAIAAJ&ots=MMSzMggNCI#v=onepage&q=Claudius%20legal%20reforms&f=false
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.
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.