caesar novus

Giovanni Hidalgo & Friends performing Buena Vista Social Club's "El Carretero" live

Famous researcher of ancient dna and author David Reich had a couple hour youtube here that generated 3000 (mostly supportive) comments. I didn't realize they are so active with prehistoric and ancient dna, but apparently they are reluctant to publish due to narrative-busting results. Lots of findings about the plague and hordes from the east and how new narratives need to be developed:

Zeugma Mosaic Museum Virtual Tour

A prominent more nerdy western counterpart AI was just made free, offering an optional reason mode 03mini: https://chatgpt.com/ I tried rerunning some of these questions, and it did toy around with explanations and a few answers, but always it choked with "There was an error generating a response". Might work better for those in a different time zone; it's supposed to have similar quality.

I was more interested in how it reasoned to form haikus rather than which people chosen. And interested in Adrian's rich details for them. I just reran the search with explanations turned on, and yes it was based on a literal acceptance of 10 web pages. I think I could tell it to be skeptical and not rely on compilation lists, but might then need to get behind book paywalls. Supposedly it sneaked past entire NYT archive paywall, and that influence may be why it once made a woke attack against an innocent question of mine. I used to be skeptical against this mindless pattern-matching neural network approach, but found they can discover the rules of logic without being taught. That's why I use the R1 version of deepseek, which stands for reasoning. As for learning facts, deepseek is famous in only spending a few million in training vs a hundred+ million for competitors, yet getting similar results. Assimilating facts is costly but straightforward. Complex reasoning is badly done by humans, and seems ripe for automation. If you can prove reasoning capability thru explanations, then you might justify more investment for loading in facts. P.S. A crippled (lite) version of Chinese deepseek can be downloaded to run on laptops, but there is a U.S. law proposing 20 years of prison for that (for espionage). I showed how to run the powerful web version in a topic something like 5 worst Roman emperors. Excerpt of (a shallow) deepseek explanation:

I just noticed the eminent Adrian Goldsworthy covers a similar list of top generals:

Seems to be Roman brick and tile (very distinctive) with mostly unidentifiable stone and rubble.

"Orange Blossom Special ~ Michael Cleveland ~ BEST VERSION EVER !"

Julius Caesar Swift as the eagle, Conquering lands, forging new Rome— Dictator’s sharp blade. Scipio Africanus Carthage falls to dust, Strategist with steady hand— Rome’s savior ascends. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus Three triumphs he claimed, Yet shadows of Caesar grew— Fate’s tide turned unkind. Gaius Marius Reformer of steel, Legions reborn through his will— Rome’s shield, strong and true. Lucius Cornelius Sulla Lion of the Senate, Blood and power marked his reign— Dictator’s cold gaze. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa Sea’s master, steadfast, Actium’s waves bowed to him— Augustus’ strong arm. Belisarius (Byzantine, but inspired by Roman tradition) Last light of old Rome, Eagle’s wings in twilight skies— Glory fades, yet burns.

My memory fades on this, so I consulted DeepSeek: Okay, so I need to figure out what laws the ancient Romans had against spousal abuse and how historians view their treatment of wives who had affairs. Let me start by breaking this down. First, spousal abuse in ancient Rome. I remember that Roman law was quite developed, especially with the Twelve Tables and later codes. But how did they handle domestic violence? I know that the paterfamilias had a lot of power, including over his wife and children. So maybe the husband had legal authority to discipline his family, which could include physical punishment. But were there any limits? I think there was a concept of "vitia" or faults that could lead to divorce, but not sure if abuse was regulated. Regarding adultery, I recall that Augustus passed the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis around 18-17 BCE. This law made adultery a criminal offense. If a wife was caught in adultery, the husband could kill her lover if he was of lower status, but the wife herself couldn't be killed by her husband. Instead, she would face divorce and loss of dowry. The father, however, had the right to kill both the wife and her lover if caught in the act. But how harshly were wives treated compared to husbands? Men could have extramarital relations with slaves or prostitutes without legal repercussions, so there's a double standard. Wait, but how does this tie into spousal abuse? If a husband was allowed to kill the lover, does that imply he could also physically punish his wife? Or was the punishment more social and legal, like divorce? Also, the question mentions how badly historians think Romans treated their wives for affairs. So maybe looking at historical accounts or literature for examples. For instance, in some texts, there are stories of women being severely punished, but were these exceptions or the norm? Another angle: Roman morality emphasized the virtue of women, especially in terms of chastity. Adultery by a wife was seen as a threat to the family's honor and the legitimacy of children. So the social stigma would be severe. However, legal punishments might have been more about fines, exile, or loss of property rather than physical abuse sanctioned by law. But then again, the paterfamilias had the right to enforce discipline. So if a wife committed adultery, the husband might have had the authority to punish her, but the law might have restricted extreme actions. Augustus's law required the husband to divorce the adulterous wife or be charged as a pimp. So maybe the legal system moved some of the punishment out of the family's hands and into the courts. As for spousal abuse outside of adultery, I'm not sure. The Roman concept of "manus" marriage where the husband had legal control over the wife might have allowed for physical discipline, but perhaps societal norms or later laws limited this. Maybe there were laws against excessive cruelty, but enforcement would be another matter. Historians' perspectives: some might argue that given the patriarchal structure, abuse was common but underreported. Others might point to legal texts that suggest some protections, like if a wife was mistreated, she could divorce, especially in later periods when divorce became more accessible. But earlier on, divorce was harder, so women had fewer options. I should also consider sources like the writings of Cicero, Seneca, or legal codes like the Digest. For example, Seneca criticized excessive cruelty, which might indicate that it happened but was frowned upon. The Lex Julia might show that the state started to take more control over domestic matters, reducing the individual's right to exact violent punishment. In summary, the laws on spousal abuse were likely minimal, with the paterfamilias having broad authority, but perhaps social expectations moderated this. Adultery by wives was severely punished legally and socially, with laws allowing the father or husband to kill the adulterers in specific circumstances, but by the time of Augustus, this was regulated more through the courts. Historians probably view the treatment as harsh by modern standards, with a significant double standard between men and women. (Due to technical issues, the search service is temporarily unavailable.) In ancient Rome, laws and social norms regarding spousal abuse and adultery were deeply intertwined with patriarchal structures and evolving legal frameworks. Here's a structured summary of the key points: Spousal Abuse: Paterfamilias Authority: The male head of household (paterfamilias) held significant legal power over family members, including wives. While he could discipline his household, outright abuse was likely moderated by social expectations of moderatio (moderation) and ius vitae necisque (power of life and death) being more theoretical than practical in later periods. Legal Protections: By the Imperial era, laws began to curb excessive domestic violence. For instance, the Lex Julia de vi publica (late 1st century BCE) criminalized violent acts, potentially extending to domestic abuse. Wives could seek divorce for cruelty, especially post-Augustan reforms, though enforcement varied. Adultery and Treatment of Wives: Augustan Legislation: The Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis (18–17 BCE) criminalized adultery. Key provisions: A husband could kill his wife’s lover only if the lover was of lower status (e.g., a slave) and caught in the act. Killing the wife herself was prohibited. Fathers retained the right to kill both the adulterous daughter and her lover if caught in flagrante. Husbands were required to divorce adulterous wives or face charges as accomplices. Social and Legal Consequences: Adulterous wives faced public shaming, loss of dowry, and exile to islands (e.g., under Augustus’s laws). Men, however, faced no penalties for extramarital relations with slaves, prostitutes, or unmarried women. Double Standard: Historians emphasize a stark gender bias. Female adultery threatened familial honor and inheritance legitimacy, leading to harsher penalties. Male infidelity was socially tolerated unless it involved another man’s wife. Historians’ Perspectives: Severity: Treatment of adulterous wives is viewed as harsh by modern standards, though legal mechanisms (e.g., court trials) aimed to reduce vigilante justice. The Augustan laws shifted punishment from private vengeance to state oversight. Social Realities: Literary sources (e.g., Juvenal, Ovid) suggest adultery was common despite severe laws, indicating potential gaps between legislation and practice. Elite women faced greater scrutiny, while lower-class women had less documented recourse. Cultural Context: Roman morality prized female pudicitia (chastity), and adultery was seen as a communal disgrace. However, historians note that legal reforms like Augustus’s reflected attempts to address moral decay rather than endemic violence. Conclusion: Ancient Roman laws on spousal abuse were minimal, with patriarchal authority prevailing but tempered by evolving legal checks. Adultery by wives was met with severe legal and social repercussions, underscoring a gendered double standard. Historians recognize these practices as products of a deeply patriarchal society, where state intervention sought to balance familial honor with public order. AI-generated, for reference only

Help, I can't stop and asked about sister trivia. DeepSeek sayth: Okay, so I need to figure out which Roman emperors had sisters. Let me start by recalling some of the Roman emperors and their family members. I know that many emperors came from dynastic families, so they might have had siblings. For example, the Julio-Claudian dynasty includes emperors like Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Augustus was the first emperor, originally named Octavian. He was the adopted son of Julius Caesar. I think he had a sister named Octavia, but I'm not sure if she was his full sister or maybe a half-sister. Then Tiberius was his stepson, right? So maybe Tiberius had sisters from his biological father's side. Caligula, whose real name was Gaius, was part of the Julio-Claudian line too. His father was Germanicus, who was a prominent general. I remember that Caligula had sisters named Agrippina the Younger, Drusilla, and Julia Livilla. They were pretty influential, especially Agrippina, who later became the mother of Emperor Nero. Moving on to Claudius, he was Caligula's uncle. I think Claudius had a sister named Livilla, but I might be mixing her up with someone else. Then Nero, his mother was Agrippina the Younger, so his sisters would be from her side, but Nero himself didn't have any full sisters that I can recall. Maybe half-sisters? Then there's the Flavian dynasty with Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Vespasian had a daughter named Domitilla, but I'm not sure about sisters. Titus and Domitian were brothers, so their sisters would be Domitilla the Younger. The Nerva-Antonine dynasty includes emperors like Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Commodus. Marcus Aurelius had a sister named Annia Cornificia Faustina. Commodus was his son, so maybe he had sisters too? I think Marcus Aurelius had daughters, so Commodus would have sisters. Then there's the Severan dynasty with Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Geta, etc. Septimius had a sister named Octavilla. Caracalla and Geta were brothers, so their sisters would be from their father's side. In the later emperors, like Constantine the Great, he had half-sisters, such as Constantia, who married Licinius. Wait, I should verify some of these. For example, Augustus did have a sister named Octavia the Elder and another named Octavia the Younger? Or was it just one Octavia? Maybe Octavia the Younger was his sister. Then Tiberius, his biological father was Tiberius Claudius Nero, so he might have had siblings from that side. But Tiberius was adopted by Augustus, so his original siblings might not be as well-known. Caligula's sisters were definitely named Agrippina, Drusilla, and Julia Livilla. They were known as the three sisters and were quite prominent. Claudius, I think, had a sister named Livilla, who was involved in some scandals, maybe with Sejanus. For the Flavians, Vespasian had a daughter named Domitilla, but his sister might have been named Flavia Vespasia. Titus and Domitian's sister was Domitilla the Younger. Marcus Aurelius had a sister named Annia Cornificia Faustina, yes. Commodus had sisters named Lucilla, who was married to Lucius Verus before he died, and others. Septimius Severus had a sister named Octavilla, and his sons Caracalla and Geta had a sister named Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea? Wait, no, Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea were related to Elagabalus and Severus Alexander. Maybe I'm confusing the Severan women here. Constantine had half-sisters, like Constantia, from his father's other marriages. I need to make sure I'm not mixing up daughters with sisters. For example, when an emperor has a daughter, that's his child, not his sister. So for each emperor, I need to check if they had sisters, not just female relatives. Also, some emperors might have had half-sisters if their fathers remarried. For example, if an emperor's father had daughters from a previous marriage, those would be the emperor's half-sisters. Let me try to list out emperors by dynasty and note their sisters: Julio-Claudian: - Augustus: Sister Octavia the Younger (full sister), and Octavia the Elder (half-sister? Or maybe just one Octavia). Need to check. His father had two wives, so Octavia might be his full sister from the same mother. - Tiberius: His biological father was Tiberius Claudius Nero, so his siblings would be from that marriage. He had a brother named Nero Claudius Drusus, who was the father of Claudius. So maybe Tiberius had a sister? Not sure. - Caligula: Sisters Agrippina the Younger, Drusilla, Julia Livilla. - Claudius: Sister Livilla (sister of Claudius, daughter of Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia Minor). Also, another sister named Claudia? - Nero: His mother was Agrippina the Younger, so his siblings would be from her marriage to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. I think he had a sister named Claudia Augusta, but she died young. Flavian: - Vespasian: Sister Flavia Vespasia. - Titus: Sisters Domitilla the Younger and another sister? - Domitian: Same sisters as Titus. Nerva-Antonine: - Trajan: Had a sister named Ulpia Marciana. - Hadrian: No known sisters. - Antoninus Pius: Had a sister named Arria Fadilla. - Marcus Aurelius: Sister Annia Cornificia Faustina. - Commodus: Sisters Lucilla, Annia Aurelia Galeria Faustina, etc. Severan: - Septimius Severus: Sister Octavilla. - Caracalla: Sister Julia Domna's daughters? Wait, Julia Domna was his mother. His sister was Julia Maesa? No, Julia Maesa was Julia Domna's sister. Caracalla had a sister named Publia Fulvia Plautilla? Wait, maybe not. Caracalla's siblings were Geta and another sister, maybe named Julia Soaemias? Not sure. This part is confusing. Later Emperors: - Constantine the Great: Half-sister Constantia, Anastasia, Eutropia, and others. I might be making some mistakes here, especially with the Severan dynasty. Need to check which emperors had sisters and confirm their names. Also, some emperors from the Crisis of the Third Century might have had sisters, but information might be scarce. For example, Emperor Elagabalus had a sister named Julia Soaemias, but he was part of the Severan dynasty. Also, some emperors might have adopted siblings, but the question is about biological sisters. So, compiling all this, the key emperors with known sisters would include Augustus, Caligula, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Trajan, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla (though maybe not), Constantine, and others. But I need to be precise and make sure each entry is accurate. (Due to technical issues, the search service is temporarily unavailable.) Here is a list of Roman emperors who had sisters, along with details about their siblings: Julio-Claudian Dynasty (27 BCE – 68 CE) Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE) Sister: Octavia the Younger (full sister), a prominent figure who married Mark Antony and later supported Augustus' regime. Caligula (37–41 CE) Sisters: Julia Agrippina (Agrippina the Younger, later mother of Nero), Julia Drusilla, and Julia Livilla. These three sisters were central to Caligula's public image and political alliances. Claudius (41–54 CE) Sister: Livilla (Claudia Livia Julia), involved in political scandals during the reign of Tiberius. Nero (54–68 CE) Sister: Claudia Augusta (died in infancy). Flavian Dynasty (69–96 CE) Vespasian (69–79 CE) Sister: Flavia Vespasia (name uncertain; historical records are sparse). Titus (79–81 CE) & Domitian (81–96 CE) Sister: Flavia Domitilla the Younger (daughter of Vespasian; sister to both emperors). Nerva-Antonine Dynasty (96–192 CE) Trajan (98–117 CE) Sister: Ulpia Marciana, honored with the title Augusta during his reign. Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE) Sister: Arria Fadilla, daughter of his father’s first marriage. Marcus Aurelius (161–180 CE) Sister: Annia Cornificia Faustina, mentioned in his correspondence. Commodus (177–192 CE) Sisters: Lucilla (Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla, married to co-emperor Lucius Verus) and other sisters like Fadilla and Cornificia. Severan Dynasty (193–235 CE) Septimius Severus (193–211 CE) Sister: Octavilla, though details about her are scarce. Caracalla (198–217 CE) & Geta (209–211 CE) Sister: Julia Avita Mamaea (mother of Severus Alexander) and Julia Soaemias (mother of Elagabalus) were their cousins, not sisters. Their only confirmed sibling was Geta (brother). Elagabalus (218–222 CE) Sister: Julia Soaemias Bassiana (his mother), though this is debated; some sources suggest half-sisters from his father’s side. Later Emperors Constantine the Great (306–337 CE) Half-Sisters: Constantia (married Licinius), Anastasia, and Eutropia, born to his father Constantius Chlorus and stepmother Theodora. Notes: Tiberius (14–37 CE) had a brother (Drusus the Elder) but no confirmed sisters. Hadrian (117–138 CE) and Diocletian (284–305 CE) are examples of emperors with no recorded sisters. Information on sisters is often fragmentary, especially for emperors during the Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 CE). This list highlights emperors with documented sisters, though some details remain uncertain due to incomplete historical records.

Wow, I turned off internet searching and asked DeepSeek what emperors were like Winston Churchill: ================>>>>> Okay, the user previously asked about the funniest Roman emperors, and now they're asking which ones are most like Winston Churchill. Let me break this down. First, I need to recall Churchill's key traits. He was a wartime leader known for his leadership during WWII, his oratory skills, resilience, strategic thinking, and literary contributions. He also had a complex personality with some controversial policies. Now, which Roman emperors share these qualities? The user probably wants a comparison based on leadership during crises, eloquence, political acumen, and maybe even some personal flaws. Looking at Roman history, Augustus comes to mind. He ended the civil wars and established the Pax Romana, similar to Churchill's stabilizing role. Both were skilled in propaganda and building a lasting legacy. But Augustus was more of a statesman than a wartime leader in the same sense as Churchill. Vespasian is another candidate. He restored stability after the Year of the Four Emperors, focused on practical reforms, and had a down-to-earth personality. His military background and rebuilding efforts post-crisis align with Churchill's leadership during and after the war. Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher emperor, led through the Marcomannic Wars. His stoicism and emphasis on duty resonate with Churchill's resilience. Plus, his writings, like "Meditations," parallel Churchill's literary works. However, Marcus was more contemplative, whereas Churchill was more of a public figure. Claudius might be a stretch, but he was underestimated yet effective, expanding the empire and focusing on infrastructure. His scholarly side could be likened to Churchill's writing, but their leadership contexts differ. Trajan, a military emperor, expanded the empire and was celebrated, but maybe less of a literary figure. Constantine had strategic vision with founding Constantinople and promoting Christianity, which is a significant legacy, similar to Churchill's impact. I need to highlight the closest matches. Augustus, Vespasian, and Marcus Aurelius seem the strongest. Claudius and Trajan as honorable mentions. The user might also be interested in leaders who balanced military and intellectual pursuits, so emphasizing those aspects would be key. Also, considering Churchill's flaws, mentioning the emperors' controversies would provide a balanced view. For example, Augustus's political manipulations or Marcus's challenges with Commodus. I should structure the answer by comparing each emperor's traits to Churchill's, noting similarities and differences. Conclude with a summary of why these parallels exist, perhaps touching on their legacies and how they navigated crises. Comparing Roman emperors to Winston Churchill—a statesman known for his wartime leadership, eloquence, resilience, and political pragmatism—requires identifying emperors who demonstrated similar qualities: strategic brilliance in crisis, rhetorical skill, adaptability, and a legacy of stabilizing or defending the empire. Here are three Roman emperors whose traits or actions align with Churchill’s persona: 1. Augustus (Gaius Octavius Thurinus) Why Churchill-like? Crisis Leadership: Like Churchill during WWII, Augustus emerged from civil war (after Julius Caesar’s assassination) to stabilize Rome, end decades of chaos, and establish the Pax Romana. Political Savvy: Both were masterful propagandists and institution-builders. Augustus reorganized the Roman state while maintaining the illusion of republican traditions, much like Churchill’s balancing of wartime coalitions and democratic ideals. Legacy Crafting: Churchill’s memoirs and speeches shaped his legacy; Augustus’s Res Gestae (his autobiographical inscription) did the same for his reign. 2. Vespasian (Titus Flavius Vespasianus) Why Churchill-like? Post-Crisis Stabilization: Vespasian took power after the chaotic "Year of the Four Emperors" (69 CE), much like Churchill leading Britain after the political turmoil of the 1930s. He restored fiscal and military discipline. Practical Reforms: Churchill’s focus on infrastructure (e.g., the Mulberry Harbors) mirrors Vespasian’s public works (the Colosseum, tax reforms). Both prioritized rebuilding and pragmatism over ideology. Humorous Cynicism: Churchill’s wit finds a match in Vespasian, who famously quipped, “Money has no smell,” when criticized for taxing urine (used in tanning). 3. Marcus Aurelius Why Churchill-like? Stoic Resilience: Marcus Aurelius, a philosopher-emperor, faced the Marcomannic Wars and a plague with stoic resolve, echoing Churchill’s “never surrender” ethos during the Blitz. Intellectual Depth: Both were writers—Churchill won a Nobel Prize in Literature; Marcus penned Meditations, a timeless work on duty and perseverance. Moral Leadership: While Churchill’s legacy is complicated (e.g., colonial policies), both leaders emphasized ethical governance during existential threats. Honorable Mentions: Claudius: Overcame physical disabilities and political marginalization to become an effective administrator (like Churchill’s “wilderness years” before 1940). Trajan: A military leader who expanded the empire to its greatest extent, akin to Churchill’s imperial vision (though Trajan lacked Churchill’s literary flair). Constantine the Great: A strategic visionary who unified a fractured empire (like Churchill’s wartime coalition) and pivoted Rome toward a new era (Christianity). Key Parallels: Crisis Management: All these emperors, like Churchill, rose to power during upheaval and left a lasting institutional legacy. Eloquence & Propaganda: Their ability to communicate vision (Augustus’s imagery, Marcus’s philosophy, Vespasian’s wit) mirrors Churchill’s mastery of rhetoric. Flawed but Pragmatic: Churchill’s controversies (e.g., Gallipoli) find echoes in Augustus’s ruthlessness or Marcus’s failure to prevent his son Commodus’s disastrous reign. Note: Churchill’s blend of democracy and empire has no direct Roman parallel, but these emperors embody facets of his leadership—turning chaos into order through grit, words, and adaptability. New chat

OK, one thumbs down for the tool hoovering up popular misconceptions. I got thru one "funny" query below. I am trying to get beyond the searching function and more into reasoning, but: DEEPSEEK RESPONSE: Okay, so the user is asking for the three funniest Roman emperors. Hmm, I need to figure out which emperors are known for their humorous or eccentric behavior. Let me start by recalling some of the more notorious emperors from Roman history. First, I remember Caligula. He's infamous for his bizarre antics. Like, didn't he appoint his horse as a consul? That's pretty ridiculous. Also, there's stories about him declaring war on Neptune and collecting seashells as spoils. Those actions were probably seen as absurd even back then, so he might be a candidate. Then there's Nero. He famously played the lyre while Rome burned, though that's more of a legend. But he also performed in public theaters, which was considered scandalous for an emperor. Romans looked down on acting as a low-class profession, so his insistence on performing could be seen as humorous or at least highly eccentric. Another one might be Elagabalus. I think he was known for his extravagant parties and eccentric behavior. He supposedly hosted dinners where guests were smothered in rose petals, and he had peculiar habits like dressing in women's clothing and marrying a Vestal Virgin, which was a big taboo. His disregard for traditional norms probably made him a figure of ridicule. Wait, what about Commodus? He fancied himself a gladiator and fought in the arena, which was seen as undignified for an emperor. He even renamed Rome after himself, Colonia Commodiana. That's pretty over-the-top. Maybe he should be included instead of one of the others? But the user asked for the three funniest, so I need to pick the top three based on their humorous or absurd actions. Caligula, Nero, and Elagabalus seem to stand out the most for their outrageous behavior. Commodus was eccentric too, but maybe not as humorously so. Let me verify some facts. Caligula's horse Incitatus being made a priest or consul is a well-known anecdote, though historians debate its accuracy. Nero's performances and the Great Fire of Rome are legendary. Elagabalus's gender non-conforming behavior and bizarre banquets are well-documented in historical sources like Cassius Dio. So, I think the top three would be Caligula, Nero, and Elagabalus. Their actions, while often tyrannical and destructive, have elements of absurdity that can be seen as darkly humorous from a modern perspective. I should present their eccentricities and explain why they're considered funny, while also noting the historical context that their reigns were marked by instability and cruelty. (Due to technical issues, the search service is temporarily unavailable.) The Roman Empire had several emperors known for their eccentric, absurd, or darkly humorous antics. While their reigns were often marked by tyranny and instability, their bizarre behavior has inspired both historical fascination and morbid comedy. Here are three emperors whose antics stand out: 1. Caligula (Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus) Infamous for: Appointing his horse, Incitatus, as a "priest" and allegedly planning to make him a consul. Absurdity: Declared war on Neptune (the sea god) and ordered soldiers to collect seashells as "spoils of war." Hosted lavish, nonsensical parties and reportedly spoke to the moon. Legacy: His unpredictable behavior—mixing sadism, megalomania, and slapstick—has made him a poster child for imperial madness. 2. Nero (Nero Claudius Caesar) Infamous for: Famously (and likely apocryphally) "fiddling while Rome burned" during the Great Fire of Rome (64 CE). Absurdity: Insisted on performing as a lyre player, poet, and charioteer in public games, despite Roman elites viewing such roles as disgraceful. Created a 100-foot-tall statue of himself, the Colossus Neronis. Legacy: His theatrical self-indulgence and erratic rule turned him into a caricature of vanity and excess. 3. Elagabalus (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) Infamous for: Throwing dinner parties where guests were smothered in rose petals, served dishes made of jewels, or confronted with lions made of pastry. Absurdity: Dressed in silk gowns and makeup, married a Vestal Virgin (a major taboo), and reportedly offered vast sums to any doctor who could give him female anatomy. Legacy: His gender-nonconforming defiance of norms and chaotic reign made him a legendary figure of decadence. Honorable Mention: Commodus Renamed Rome "Colonia Commodiana," fought in gladiatorial bouts (rigged in his favor), and claimed to be the reincarnation of Hercules. His delusional antics could easily earn him a spot on this list. Note: While these emperors’ antics seem humorous in retrospect, their reigns were marked by cruelty, paranoia, and political chaos. Their "humor" is largely a product of historical hindsight and satirical exaggeration by ancient writers like Suetonius and Cassius Dio. New chat