Depends on who's writing about him. But Claudius is generally seen as a smart guy who took advantage of his diabetes to make himself seem like he wasn't a threat (or maybe because of his disablities he really wasn't a threat) who ended up as emperor, and did a pretty good job because he was a guy of normal intelligence in a fucked up body.

He was a good emperor with some physical/mental ticks. Contemporaries couldn't get past the stuttering and the hunch back (or whatever it was) enough to give him full credit.

Why did he choose Nero over Britannicus?

>>968518
Because he was persuaded by his niece that choosing Nero would reunite the family.

Was he a good Emperor though? I don't care about his well-documented stutter. Suetonius is fairly harsh on him, if I recall correctly. But he's the only Roman source I have read on Claudius

>>968477
A bit of both

>successfully conquers Britannia, outmatching Ceasar
>philosophy/historyfag who wrote his own works
>speaks several languages, including Etruscan (he was actually one of the last Romans able to speak Etruscan)

Pretty based imo

He was a bookworm conqueror, something /his/ secretly aspires to be. The only bad thing is that he was cucked by his wife

>>968532
Well he conquered Britain, built one hell of an aqueduct, badass administrator, made really good attempt at draining the swamp, and was an all around smart guy that constantly dodged assassinations

>>968477
He was a sensible practical man who wasnt retarded but not some genius either. He wasn't too into being Emperor but he did it anyway and he just did his best. Good guy Claudius.

>>968532
>Was he a good Emperor though?
A was a pretty good administrator and politician. His main faults were that his women and his liberti could make him do whatever they wanted and that he micromanaged a lot. And his micromanaging tended to be much worse than his macromanaging, because he stuck his nose where he had no competence like military matters.

>>968634
>his women could make him do whatever they wanted
We will never have another empire until man rids himself of this problem

>>968667
The problem is inherent tho. Even with fags like Hadrian, it still happens. Even with eunuchs, it still happens.
The only real solution is to screen the women near the emperor to be either loyal and competent waifus or completely uninterested in their husband's role.

>>968667
If you know of a way to dampen or eliminate female mind control, I'd be glad to hear it.

>>968634
>>968667

You're referring to Messalina and Agripinna the Younger? The former seemed, by all accounts, to be trying to exploit Claudius to fill her pockets. But Agripinna the Younger was doing what we'd all do born as a woman in the Imperial family - try to become indispensible to the Emperor of the day, protect your heir, dodge assassins from rival lineages, generally manouvre for the sake of survival. Being a dumb, obedient woman in this situation would get you and your children shanked pretty quickly desu.

>>968697
Yeah I'm not saying that being self serving is a bad thing, I'm saying being easily manipulated is a pretty bad trait for a ruler. I mean surely you don't think getting Nero on the throne was a good result? Also didn't Messalina have Claudius execute a (loyal and talented) guy that spurned her (out of loyalty and decency)?

>>968634
I think that might have just been Roman bias towards having women and freemen as advisers. If he had been listening to senators they wouldn't have batted an eyelash

>>968759
What do you mean?
Do you think history would have remembered Nero as a good emperor if he was acclaimed by the senate instead of maneuvered to the throne by his mother?

>>968518
I actually do this question with my Stage 6 students (Ausfag here). I get them to tell me who they reckon would do a better job of running a country, the little shits in Year 7 or some peeps just starting Year 12. After the usual they'd both do a shitty job, it's generally concluded that the older person is the better option.

For me, the question is more how could anyone have considered Britannicus over Nero at that point? Give it a couple of years and it might be some interesting debate, but seriously, he's roughly 12-13 by the time he karks it.

>>968779
I am just saying that most roman historians were senators, and had the biases of senators, you can see this is Tacitus in particular.

taking advice from freemen would have been looked down on no matter how good the advice was, because freemen had no business being involved with goverment.

>>968477

Requisite Thread theme song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71s_Y37_KYo

>>968477
Because the ones that try to imply Claudius as ineffectual, incompetent, or otherwise negatively tend to come from Roman writers who wrote somewhere typically between decades or longer after his regin. The most butthurt faction was always the patricians when it came to the Caesars.

Claudius left behind evidence that he was an excellent administrator, organizer, popular with the Senate, and someone who never wanted to be hoisted onto the throne as emperor but he did his job.

>>968683
You'd have to stop their pheromones