Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump… Our Claudius
The Hoover Institution ^ | May 31, 2017 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 06/04/2017 9:57:31 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The Roman Emperor Claudius, who reigned from 41 to 54 AD, was never supposed to be emperor. He came to office at age 50, an old man in Roman times. Claudius succeeded the charismatic, youthful heartthrob Caligula—son of the beloved Germanicus and the “little boot” who turned out to be a narcissist monster before being assassinated in office.

Claudius was an unusual emperor, the first to be born outside Italy, in Roman Gaul. Under the Augustan Principate, new Caesars—who claimed direct lineage from the “divine” Augustus—were usually rubber-stamped by the toadyish Senate. However, the outsider Claudius (who had no political training and was prevented by his uncle Tiberius from entering the cursus honorum), was brought into power by the Roman Praetorian Guard, who wanted a change from the status quo apparat of the Augustan dynasty.

The Roman aristocracy—most claiming some sort of descent from Julius Caesar and his grandnephew Octavian (Caesar Augustus)—had long written Claudius off as a hopeless dolt. Claudius limped, the result of a childhood disease or genetic impairment. His mother Antonia, ashamed of his habits and appearance, called the youthful Claudius “a monster of man.” He was likely almost deaf and purportedly stuttered.

That lifelong disparagement of his appearance and mannerisms probably saved Claudius’s life in the dynastic struggles during the last years of the Emperor Augustus and the subsequent reigns of the emperors Tiberius and Caligula.

The stereotyped impression of Claudius was that of a simpleton not to be taken seriously—and so no one did. Claudius himself claimed that he feigned acting differently in part so that he would not be targeted by enemies before he assumed power, and to unnerve them afterwards....


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: claudius; romanempire; trump; vdh; vdhtrump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet

I see Trump on the “twenty!”


21 posted on 06/04/2017 11:35:24 AM PDT by papertyger (The semantics define how we think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I like to imagine Trump as Sulla. He solved Rome’s middle-east terror problem.

Imperfect but effective ... for a time.


22 posted on 06/04/2017 12:00:19 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Mass murder and cannibalism are the twin sacraments of socialism - "Who-whom?"-Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

I see logic and it makes sense. But Johnny Horton has this song that really reminds me of the strength of Trump. :)


23 posted on 06/04/2017 12:01:20 PM PDT by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: oldplayer

Great thinking! Still Johnny Horton has this song about the War of 1812 and it has Trump’s name written all over it. Cheesy I know.... :)


24 posted on 06/04/2017 12:03:28 PM PDT by navymom1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: navymom1

I think he might be Moses in some ways. Hope he makes it to the promised land with a great again America.


25 posted on 06/04/2017 12:07:16 PM PDT by gymbeau (America...becoming great again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oldplayer

I agree. Glad he is on our side. There is no one even close to VDH on the left.


26 posted on 06/04/2017 12:17:04 PM PDT by PlateOfShrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti

I wouldn’t call VDH a NeverTrumper. Here’s what he wrote in September 2016 “It may be discomforting for some conservatives to vote for the Republican party’s duly nominated candidate, but as this Manichean two-person race ends, it is now becoming suicidal not to.”

Maybe that’s not a ringing endorsement, but VDH knew which lever to pull.


27 posted on 06/04/2017 12:25:13 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Claudius was murdered by his fourth wife.

Trump had better remain married to his third wife, for more reasons than one.

Claudius' ancestry was actually more distinguished than Augustus'...Augustus was born Gaius Octavius, a plebeian, and became a patrician only by virtue of his adoption, whereas the Claudii had been one of the most distinguished patrician families throughout the history of the Roman Republic. Unfortunately for their reputations, the dominant interpretation of Roman political history was hostile to them and painted several of them as monsters.

28 posted on 06/04/2017 12:27:12 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Ah, that patrician ancestry could explain why the Praetorian Guard helped Claudius to ascend to the throne. The Praetorian Guard acted in a way that our current ‘Field’ FBI is acting today.


29 posted on 06/04/2017 12:48:06 PM PDT by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

He was the only male left in the imperial family when Caligula was assassinated...the Guard wanted to keep their jobs and privileges so they wanted the system created by Augustus to continue. The Senate debated restoring the Republic...the Guard did not want that.


30 posted on 06/04/2017 12:57:44 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

VDH’s comparisons are at odds with your facts. It appears to me you are in command of the history whereas VDH is writing fluff more or less. His comparison makes for interesting thoughts but starts off shaky as the United States is still a Republic whereas Claudius did not have that going for him.

Regardless, there are more important fish to fry.


31 posted on 06/04/2017 1:16:48 PM PDT by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LS
Lincoln was an absolutely terrible President and our perception of him is based on a lot of fawning bios and misinformation.

I recently read of a book written back in the 1940’s that pretty much told the truth of how he really was, then more recently there are two books by Thomas J. Dilorenzo that delve into Lincoln even more.

32 posted on 06/04/2017 1:19:04 PM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

Ping


33 posted on 06/04/2017 1:37:26 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which ‘liberalism’ coheres is that NOTHING ACTUALLY MATTERS except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

No. DiLorenzo is a boob. We completely destroy him in “A Patriot’s History of the United States.” Lincoln has been very well written about by any number of great historians, including Allan Nevins. See our section on Lincoln, second best president to GW.

DiLorenzo is a Lincoln hater & not worth the time.


34 posted on 06/04/2017 1:56:47 PM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LS

BULL, HE WAS TYRANT.


35 posted on 06/04/2017 2:00:05 PM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: oldplayer
The farm land was nice but what they really wanted was the gold.

Yep, the first gold rush was in Georgia.

Consider that even with that the economy still floundered under Jackson.

You are right. Jackson is not a good comparison.

36 posted on 06/04/2017 2:09:11 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Not a Romantic, not a hero worshiper and stop trying to tug my heartstrings. It tickles! (pink bow))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

Not hardly. Been listening to way too many lefties. Don’t forget Dems founded the KKK, and the Dems were CREATED for one purpose only, to protect & preserve slavery. (Thank you Martin van Buren and Andy Jackson). Lincoln & Rs were the only party in US dedicated to ending slavery in the territories (which would end it everywhere).

Don’t buy DiLorenzo’s garbage. Read “A Patriot’s History of the United States.”


37 posted on 06/04/2017 2:10:41 PM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LS
No Lincoln has been sanitized and over time the myth has taken over from the reality. I read an article by Dilorenzo recently about Lincoln. What caught my eye in that article was his mention of a book on Lincoln that told the truth about him rather than the myth, “The Deification of Lincoln”, by Ira Cardiff, publication date 1943 which I intend to read.

Your view of history is skewed and somewhat wrong. The Democrat Party was not created to preserve Slavery per se, although that might have been one aspect of it. It became the Dominant party in the South after the Civil War due to Reconstruction and other reasons.

The KKK actually went through three variations in it's history. The original KKK had nothing to do with oppressing blacks, it had to do with battling the Carpet Baggers that came south after the war. When Reconstruction was over the KKK disbanded. It did not become into existence again till 1915, and then had another transformation in about 1950. You can look all this up like I did.

By the way Lincoln was not that interested in stopping slavery, his documented remarks about Blacks are out there to see. You just have no real interest in researching this and finding out the truth. You are more persuaded by the Myth that has been written, much like we have witnessed by Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan.

38 posted on 06/04/2017 3:41:22 PM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; All

Thanks for the ping c_I_c. Interesting discussion.


39 posted on 06/04/2017 4:58:38 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

No, my view of Jacksonian history is not skewed in the slightest. Read my chapter in “Seven Events that Made America.” TONS of primary sources, none of DiLorenzos goofball crap.

Van Buren stated his goal was to prevent a Civil War. Undeniable. He decided the only way to do that was to create a PARTY that was governed by the SPOILS SYSTEM ($$) that would supercede people’s individual views on slavery. A slaveholder himself as a teenager, Van Buren knew exactly what he was doing-—preventing ANY discussion of slavery from coming to a national vote, either by the legislature or through a presidential election. Look at the sources. They are irrefutable. No one really denies this, including his most famous biographer (and Democrat) Robert Remini.

It was not “one aspect,” it was the SOLE FOUNDING PURPOSE because there was already a party that had all the “other aspects,” the Jeffersonian Republicans.

It didn’t work BECAUSE of people like Lincoln, who would not be bought, and who thought slavery’s expansion into the territories would lead to it coming back into the Free States (as of course it HAD TO constitutionally). here you can look at (which I cite) “Calculating the Value of the Union” by Huston who shows the definition of PROPERTY was the key element being fought over-—whether people were people or property.

No, this is my field. I’ve written five or six books specifically on this, found documents NO ONE (especially DiLorenzo) ever found, and know this stuff inside out. The Dem party WAS the party of protecting and preserving slavery.

Lincoln caused secession because (like Trump) he was an outsider, NOT beholden to the spoils system, and someone who couldn’t be bought off by it. He was committed to no slavery in the TERRITORIES (he always said he’d leave slavery alone in the South-—but of course, as Huston points out, this would mean the death of slavery if it couldn’t expand due to the definition of property).

You really need to read more. Yes, the original KKK was completely racist, had EVERYTHING to do with oppressing blacks, was led by the guy who Ulysses Grant saw slaughter black POWs at Fort Pillow (well, Grant saw the bodies in heaps). If you believe DiLorenzo on anything, you are completely ill served.


40 posted on 06/04/2017 5:14:11 PM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson