 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Seems kind of stupid to plan to give an important military position to a horse, even if just to mock the Senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.11.192 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now let's not be narrow-minded. He probably did a better job in politics than Gordon Brown at any rate. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
My hero! --Bateau (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone considered that getting the horse into the Senate was a brilliant procedural move? Caligula could guarantee there would never be a unanimous "yea" vote. 69.236.67.102 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Later edit
Yes, the story was not intended to discredit Augustus, or earlier Julio-Claudian emperors. Augustus was already in the pantheon of gods, and well thought of. No one questioned his sanity. Inheritance works down, then as well as now. While it's hard to get enthusiastic abt Tiberius' later years, he didn't try to make his horse a consul. Nothing really wrong with Claudius. So the word should be "later." It was rm. Student7 (talk)
Student7 (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)