2006-08-10 01:42:57 · 4 answers · asked by charly 3 in Education & Reference ➔ Trivia
I'd say Nero was more amoral. His mother put him in power by having the emporer adopt Nero, then poisoning the Emporer. In return, he killed her so she wouldn't try to share the power he received from it. He raped his sister, then banished her to a remote island. He would invite couples to dinners, take the wives and rape them, then hold a knife to their throats and say, "At my word, it comes off!" he had himself declared a god, and placed a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem, turning it into a pagan temple. He was so terrible, his own guards killed him. I'd say that counts as pretty amoral.
2006-08-10 02:55:06 · answer #1 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"amoral" is a judgment call on your part; you have prejudged his recorded behavior according to a different code of "morality" than his...unfair, unreasonable, and presumptuous of you.
If, however, you had meant "excessive, debauched, [somewhat]insane....maybe then.....
To the Romans, excursiveness was "sinful", against their mores/cultural ideals
Even then, Caligula wasn't the exception for his family
Maybe Hilter, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin kind of slipped your mind?
2006-08-10 09:59:34 · answer #2 · answered by Gemelli2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps Rasputin, the "Mad Monk" of pre-communist Russia...
2006-08-10 08:48:48 · answer #3 · answered by sarge927 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he was rumored to be quite a sicko...in almost everyway you can imagine
2006-08-10 13:35:03 · answer #4 · answered by jefferson 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋