OH NerOOOOOEZ
OK, so. This wank is on a fancomm, but it's about history (and a ruler!), so I'm sticking it here.

While on a Dogma-related fact-finding mission worth - literally - hundreds of pennies, I discovered that agnetha posted a picture of her friend's educational ruler to the ar_daily community, meaning to point out a passing resemblance between Trajan and Alan Rickman. Incidentally, the other emperors pictured on this ruler are Augustus and Nero.

Decivitatedei takes offense at Nero's presence on the ruler (while confusing an Alan Rickman fan community with either an academic journal or the ruler manufacturer):

Yeah I kinda see it. HOWEVER, as a student who is focusing on Roman History...NO NO.

Augustus and then NERO?! Why Nero? What about Tiberius who lived much longer and was his direct grandson? Who had so many achievements and such a controversial reign? Geeeez.

At this point, the ruler's actual owner, tonibunny, steps in to defend her ruler's honor:

It's a ruler aimed at kiddies, not students of Roman History, and has facts that would be interesting to kiddies on the back - ie this is Augustus who was the first emperor, this is Nero burned Rome, etc. Tiberius is fascinating, but perhaps not that interesting to an 8 year old. Even so, as a graduate with a classics degree, I think my ruler rocks :)

AWESOME. Dueling classicists!

The duel carries on for a few more posts, until decivitatedei parries herself to death:

Such emphasis is a matter of artistic composition - this is seen when Tacitus takes no direct part in most of the incidents termed major episodes. Cum repente turbare omnia fortuna coepit, saevire ipse aut saevientibus viris praebere - this is a technique employed in the Carthaginian-like degeneration of Tiberius Caesar which also did NOT begin with AD 27. Yet, because art was a major component of ancient history, it remained at the forefront along with the dramatic. Surely, by now you must have REALISED at least that Tacitus' views cannot be taken as a simple denigrator?

Besides, you single-handedly killed your argument by mentioning Tacitus. x.x First of all, and ESPECIALLY in Tacitus, the position of ars Tiberii is sometimes inhuman. If that isn't enough for distinguishing him amongst the Roman emperors, then I don't know what is. Nero, on the other hand is a much simpler tyrant, unworthy of Tacitus' complexity of analysis and merely the object of satire and vitriol.

An absurd figure involving the senators in his shameful acts. Little successes except for an initial foreign policy led by the overproud Corbulo. Degenerate. Stupid. Feeble.

Tiberius on the other hand is the symbol of Roma senescens. With him, the principate was truly established and the republic was lost. He was a mysterious, man, hard to decipher with many virtues and few vices, and the object of very much deliberation. If anything, he was the Roman twin of Severus Snape.

So yes, he deserves to be there much more than Nero. "Kiddies" would be better off learning about the emperors who truly mattered, not the ones where a spark of fire caused a fiasco.

He himself is the interesting thing. :)

Alrighty then.

Then tonibunny whacks decivitatedei over the head with the clue-by-four:

So, what event from Tiberius' reign would you put on the ruler...?

It's small, but fresh! Could get bigger!

In other news, Rickman fangirls are still scary as hell.