I think one could argue that this...
...directly contradicts this....Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
How do youknow for sure it down to adam and yve?
I am more likely to believe that we started as group of different races and not from just too people.
IT seems rather far fecthed to think of all the power that god has that he would start with only TWO people.
I believe that we starte with ONE THOUSANDS people because that is power.
Two is a weak number.
One thousand is a powerful number.
If I am going to use power then I am use to BIG as my starting point.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Bad cultivators can only be people
to cultivate you need people.
Incest is insanity and so is the incestee.
To cultivate with your own blood it to infest and turn to dust.
same blood can only mean disease and disease leads to infestation and detriment.
Phaorahs are not here anymore. That is their legacy of incest.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
The Pharaohs aren't here any more because the Ptolemaic dynasty was conquered by Rome...
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
That is what it is said.
But Ican imagine that a dynasty that is build on incest would not last very long as you know.
This is my prefered version of events.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_dynasty
Eighteen rulers, 275 years. Not bad going, for a dynasty in a highly-volatile place and time.
so you think 18 rulers and all of them blood related through incest is a lot.
well they are not here to tell the tale and that is enough said for me.
Last edited by cacian; 01-24-2012 at 06:44 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
...Huh?
Emperors, Pharaohs -mere amateurs.
The succession to the Sultan in the Ottoman empire fell upon "The Fittest" that meant that sons had to fight it out between them. Then there was the problem of all those potential threats from half brothers in dad's hareem.
The practice of fratricide, first employed by Mehmed II, soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord. As royal blood must not be spilled. _ (from Wiki)
Last edited by prendrelemick; 01-24-2012 at 02:02 PM.
ay up
I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.
This kind of behaviour bears all the signs of insanity. How these individuals got to rule is beyond my comprehension. It is scary to think that these 'emperors' were literally mad.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
No doubt. I kept reading. After that incident Nero formed round himself a bodyguard of soldiers and gladiators who he'd have stand at a close distance while he violently reveled and anyone who got rough with him he'd set this mighty armed entourage upon them.
wow how spooky is this, glad they are gone they could have lasted the way they were losing the plot.
I am quite not clear on what 'violently reveled' actually mean, I did look it up and it says boisterously having fun..
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Honorius is a good candidate for the worst Roman emperor.
He killed the one man who might have prevented the Western Roman empire collapse: His guardian, father-in-law, and principal general Flavius Stilicho. Stilicho provided much-needed stability in the already-declining empire. If he had lived, that might have been just enough to shift the tides... But we shall never know.
There's also a funny story about his chicken, that he named ''Rome''.
Anyway...
Valentinian III is another lesser known emperor.
He killed a very good General too, in a fit of jealous rage.
I consider any Emperor that actually affected the Empire to be the best candidates. The most popularly cited, and terrible persons as they were, did not generally make a significant impact.
Caligula didn't really mess up the Empire in any real way. Nero didn't really burn down Rome. Based upon their debauchery, and immoral behaviour, these aren't, in my opinion, true reasons to put them up as the worst. There were very few Roman emperors that were moral.
I think it's their administration, the allocation of resources, etc. of the Empire that should measure whether a King, or Emperor, is the worst or not.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. ~Oscar Wilde.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
