Why most roman emperors were so fucked up beta low test males?

Bet you think Alexander is beta low test too faglord.

Pretty much this. You're a fucking retard OP, but its okay at least you're not a female

They were wealthy insane faggots for the most part who costed on the prosperity they stole and robbed for greater failing empires of the time.
Their great military records were all embeleshed bullshit because not a single solitary one of those fuccbois saw a single second of actual fucking combat.

Fucking romaboos.
I swear to god.

Fucking love busts of Caracalla though. He looks so pissed off and just badass, I dunno. Even though he was shit I appreciate the art.

Just like Hitler did coke and only had one testicle amirite.

Both of these are true and i'm some kind of neo-nazi

Elagabalus had a short and irrelevant reign. He got into power by chance, never fully established his authority, and was relatively quickly removed and killed. All the great, long lived, Roman Emperors were Alpha Chads: Augustus, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, Theodosius etc.

Also a lot of the negative stuff written about Roman Emperors is propaganda made by their enemies. Take Nero, for a long time he was a considered the most degenerate and incompetent Emperor in history because of what many contemporaries wrote about him; modern historians tend to disagree however. He wasn't that bad really. It's like people 500 years from now stating as fact that Trump had piss orgies in Russian hotels and that he also fucked his own daughter and got into power because "russian alt right hackers". Don't take every bad thing written about historical figures as fact. You don't accept the fact that Elagabalus was a deity right? (as his backers said he was), then why do you take it for granted that he was such a degenerate? Because some guy said so 1800 years ago?

Imperial Rome was already decayed, only survived so long because of it's great republican institutions.
t. Machiavelli

The Roman Empire wasn't a monarchy.

Aristocratic republics truly are GOAT

>built “giants“ out of midgets that he could strike down

Did he try and turn manlets into normal humans?

"Hard times make good men, good men make good times, good times make soft men, soft men make hard times."

Did you come up with that by yourself or did you quote someone? That is pretty impressive stuff.

its a quote.

One of the short Emperors during the crisis of the third century rose through the legions, as many did then.

He ran 9 miles to deliver a message then beat like 6 of the strongest guys there in wrestling matches. Also like 6'6 back then which is like being 7' now.

Also, Aurelian... personally fighting his way to restore Rome from literally just Italy, to conquring the Empire back to its original size.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus#cite_ref-dio-history-lxxx-16_39-1

>He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles" and was reported to have offered vast sums of money to any physician who could equip him with female genitalia.

That's just intuition though

Only that it's completely wrong and only history illiterate idiots would think otherwise.

Elagabalus was a literal fucking tranny, so late in the empires decline that they had almost stopped recording their history.
>most
Kys

Yes we know now fuck off overly literal definition autist

Sure thing Moshe

Hello, fellow goyim

Elagabalus wasn't even roman.

>yfw the colusseum is latin for "manlet pit"

...

Lemme guess, you're an example of "good man in hard times"?

Or maybe you're an example of "irredeemable loser in the best times humanity has ever seen".

You're comparing two completely different political systems. Read a book faggot

so apparently hard times are coming

Octavian was a physically soft boy who knew nothing of war, his battles were won by his generals such as Agrippa.

But Octavian was a political mastermind

Meanwhile old Blaggy ruled two hundred years before the fall of Rome

>the republic
You mean the book? All it is is a bunch of philosophers

Actually good times mostly make good men. That quote doesn't make sense. If it were true empires would rise and fall within three generations. Good men, soft men, then hard times.

>Letting your general become a gladiator
>Not just having him killed
>Fighting him in the arena only to be killed
>Political Mastermind

What was your first clue?
In Europe those times are already here.

is that manletdestiny?

I like to consider myself a hard man

He didn't do coke, just amphetamines and then later methamphetamines when they could synthesize those easily. The switch to meth (for lots of soldiers, not just hitler) was a grave error.

> commodus enters the colosseum to fight his opponent, legendary gladiator vincenti adultmanus

>Herodian commented that Elagabalus enhanced his natural good looks by the regular application of cosmetics.[45] He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles" and was reported to have offered vast sums of money to any physician who could equip him with female genitalia.[39] Elagabalus has been characterized by some modern writers as transgender.[54][55][56]

The Roman Empire lasted ~500 years. There were about 90 emperors during that time. Estimates of the current US population (where we have eliminated a lot of heavy metal poisoning, teratogens, poor nutrition) say that ~20% of the US population has mental problems. So we might extrapolate that something like 18 Roman Emperors were likely to have mental problems.

Then factor in a historical perception bias. Nobody remembers most US presidents, but the exceptional ones stick out. We remember a surprising amount about the sex lives of certain politicians. Now double that because slander is always going to be an issue for famous or important people. So given these rough figures, we can say that there were probably at least 18 emperors who had straight up issues, probably more due to environmental influences. Then we can likely increase that number even further because people make stuff up. Then finally we only remember the crazy stuff we hear about them.

The transition between them happens over a couple generations you fucking autist.

It doesn't simply change every generation, it takes far longer for something to rise from shit and slow decay back into shit.

...

The Roman Republic era of Rome, before Caesar and Augustus.

It takes multiple generations for men to become soft. Look at Europe. Take a man from 1910 and a man from 2010 from France for example. It will be like looking at two different species. Now think about what the average European male will be like in 2050 and realize how incapable of defending their country they will be.

>tfw Europe will fall in your lifetime

>good times make weak men

Not necessarily.

Look at these conditions and their consequences, the latter can't stand on just those conditions. Hence this rhetoric way of selling this line of thought (with the images in the background included) is kind of off.

Caligula was chad af

is he the guy in disdainforplebs.jpg?

you sound like a weak man in denial cuz he had it easy his whole life, stfu

Eh, I've always found this quote to be an oversimplification. Roman politics are (obviously) too complex to be summed up like this. They faced problems much more significant than emperors liking to party too hard.

Whoa there buddy, don't be throwing some undeserved jabs at me. Calm down, nothing is on the line, there's no battle here.

If you really have to try this hard to be an "alpha" get this through your head: You are not one.

ha look at that defensive condescending reply with a cute redhead winking at me cuz that's totally you right now, manchild confirmed ;)

this used to be a pretty common sentiment among classical and 19th century historians but has been seen as cherrypicked nonsense since ~ww2

That's what happens if you make succession blood based rather than meritocratic. Great dynasties always degenerate.

who are you thinking of? cause thats definitely not Octavian lol

You guys watched Gladiator with Russel Crowe?

NOT FIT RELATED NOW FUCK OFF

Holy shit I can't believe how many faggots who are unitonically into this /pol/ tier shit you just successfully baited. I'm impressed.

...

This is actually one of the most fit related topics I've ever seen on here. Fuck off with your retarded power trip

The irony is, the people who post things like that are the soft men who create the bad times.

>soft men

Define this

>bad times

Define them.

>Take a man from 1910
How about you go ahead and describe what you think men were) like in 1910 buddy boy

>All these plebs talking about Republican Rome.
>Tfw none of them bother to mention the absolute GOAT.

Not my definition, but I did recently read Francis Fuckyama's book on the origins of political order, and here are my interpretations of his definitions

> Bad times
Characterized by a lack of strong central state. Hierarchy is determined by patrimonial succession instead of objective merit. There is either no law, no enforcement of law, or no legitimacy of law and thus everyone is forced to implement their own laws through blood feuds and revenge, which discourages trade and specialization

> Soft men
Men who are unable to recognize that a strong state requires suppression of nature human patrimonial desires or are unable to suppress them. Men who, when given a strong state, fail to make good centralized decisions and in doing so lose legitimacy to rule.

kek I bet you live in America. Or Turkey

lol everyone on Veeky Forums likes to talk about hard times hard men soft times soft men but they themselves are tiny-browed little mouthbreathers with low testosterone and tiny wrists who think they are some kind of crusaders

This nigga embarrassing.

All the alpha game of thrones types pruned each other off the beta can uprise.

True, there's no evidence of it actually being correct either. If it really was true, why are some Empires so much longer than others? Why did Alexander's empire fall basically seconds after he died? Where were the "soft men" or "Good times?" It's a meme. Were there hard times for the Arabs during the dark ages? No? it's almost like "Hard times" are relative, just like "Good" and "soft" men

Many Roman emperors were not direct descendants of their predecessors. Augustus, who was one of the best emperors, was the adopted nephew of Julius. On the contrary, Caligula, who was the nephew and adopted son of Tiberius, was a terrible emperor.