Didus Julianus ruled for a very brief period in 193 AD, having become emperor through a bid that involved offering the highest payment to the Praetorian Guard. His reign is generally considered bad due to its illegitimacy and the lack of support from the Roman populace and military. He faced immediate opposition and was unable to maintain control, leading to his assassination just a few months after taking power. Overall, his rule is often viewed as a symbol of the corruption and instability of the Roman Empire during the Year of the Five Emperors.
He is good.
good
good
GOOD!
To determine if revolutions are good or bad, one has to think of what happened before the revolution and what came after. If it benefits the people, it is a good thing.
yes,becouse he did not rule ahahahaha
noi it is not at all good
its was good because everything was kept in order but it was also strict
Stepped across a fairly good rule of thumb for what is bad to have in your food .... "If you can't say it, don't eat it"
There is no rule in the Church that says it is bad to shower on Good Friday. This is probably only a superstition or maybe a local custom, but it is not part of Christian beliefs.
The best way to find out if your pets health is good or bad is by taking them to the vet for a check up. This will rule out any illness or unhealthy parts of the pet.
Good: The rule of law guaranteed a prosperous society. Bad: They saw all non-Romans as barbarians to be killed or conquered.
yep Little and often is a good rule its wasting money applying too much.
well the one who rule is the bad guy the evil black magician who is a good magician who turn evil
It all depends on your interpretation of him. You could say he was bad because ha banned Christmas but you could say he's good because he had a strong army
Yes and no. He is good, but decides that he needs to rule the violent human race, sort of like Vandal Savage but without blowing up half the planet.
heka bad