John’s answer to “Not a question, but congrats on finding your soulmate. Your novel sounds interesting, I will track …” > Likes and Comments

Claudius—his historical roll is much debated, and he has been portrayed differently by many different historical fiction authors.

Was he, as Robert Graves described, a secret political genius, hiding his abilities to save himself, or more of a bumbling idiot, as Robert Fabbri describes.

The mix of the author's interpretation of historical figures with known events has always interested me. Caesar, for example, was described by McCollough as the greatest Roman of all time, though other authors have been less generous.

So, how do you view Claudius? Was he a smart chappie or not, weak willed, who allowed wives and freedmen to dominate his reign?

I was reminded of a quote by Marcus Aurelius this morning, Ian. And I think it is the perfect piece of narrative with which to start my reply:
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
It’s a great quote and definitely something to be mindful of when commenting on such a huge figure in history. Therefore, what I’m about to say is really my own opinion and not something I intend to assert with any suggestion of authority.
In my view, the mere fact that Claudius managed a thirteen year tenure as Emperor of the most powerful empire in the ancient world roundly rebuts any suggestion that he was a bumbling idiot. I don’t dispute that there would probably have been powerful people who had an agenda to fulfil by keeping him in power. However, without some sort of extraordinary personal qualities of his own, I very much doubt Claudius could have held on to power for so long – even with strong support.
I see no reason to doubt that Claudius was of high intellect, given that he was a well-known academic, prior to his ascending to power. His big problem was and always has been the severe disabilities he suffered which seem to have clouded the view of not only ancient writers and commentators, but also modern ones too. I agree with the mainstream view that he probably suffered from a pronounced form of cerebral palsy, the physical manifestation of which would have encouraged many of his peers to believe that he had the carriage and demeanour of some sort of ‘idiot’ or ‘half-wit’. However, modern understanding of the condition confirms that this is simply not the case.
Add to this that, in the first two years of his rule, he did nothing to impress the people or cement his position and realised that a so-far lack lustre performance might just see him going down the same road as his nephew, Caligula. So, how to solve it and win massive public and senatorial brownie points? Do something that not even the great Caesar was able to achieve – conquer Britain, for the Senate and People of Rome!
If anything lent credibility to Claudius’ rule and created firm foundations, it was this single act – the Roman equivalent of a moon landing and D Day in one go. Claudius not only gambled on a positive outcome but was astute enough to also realise that he needed to be there at the kill. So, he even came to Britain to accept the surrender of the tribes.
I could cheerfully waffle on for a while here, but I think you get the picture. In my view, Claudius was a skilful and popular ruler – for a time at least. Personally, I think Robert Graves was bang on the money with his take and I loved the subsequent portrayal by Derek Jacobi. Indeed, that is who I see when people speak the name of the Emperor I rate only one below my favourite – Vespasian.

Thanks, John. What you said supports my own thinking. His years in office attest to at least a certain level of intelligence and shrewdness, while his earlier academic interests suggest an active intellect. His later failings, well: age, alcohol, and women?!
Graves was a great author, Jacobi a great actor. The two together produced a skilful version of the novels that I still re-watch to this day.
I look forward to reading your work, but so far, no sign of anything on sale in Thailand. I will have to resort to the 'internet', most likely amazon, to buy copies.

Hi Ian. As you say - the internet/Amazon is going to be your most likely source for my books. Are you interested in the fiction, non-fiction, or both?

Hello John,
I am interested in both fiction and non-fiction of the ancient world. One illuminates the other. The ancient world is my main academic interest, I have a phd in ancient Roman philosophy, Stoicism, the early and middle empire. Was great fun.

The last century of the Republic and the first of the Empire are both well documented, so we have the means to make detailed analysis of the times, while they are also sufficiently distant so as to remove at least some of whatever bias we may have.

Would a different emperor not have invaded Britain, or was it mandated by the political realities of the time? This relates to, would a German leader other than Hitler have invaded France? Interesting questions.

I am now teaching English in Thailand, and travelling, but I maintain my interest in history and a few other subjects. Thanks to ebooks, and the internet, this is now easy to do.

Hi Ian. As you say - one illuminates the other. The great thing about the Classical world for me is the fact that, if you wish, you can totally immerse yourself in it and embark on a never ending voyage of discovery. Though, i have to say, the Roman Empire of the 1st c AD is really my spiritual home as it is packed with the most amazing people and events.
Anyhow, good luck with tracking down the book you're after and I do hope that you enjoy the read.