over population, bad ruler, people moving to different places
My theory is good and bad. I also think it was more for the bad but its an opinion.
being a good ruler and was sucessful on the battleflied another great thing that he did wasexpand the roman borders
Jupiter was the ruler of the Gods in Roman Mythology?
I believe not because Rome was a democracy of sort and had a senate which is almost like today's American Congress. If a barbarian warlord becomes ruler of the Roman Empire, Rome would be anoligarchy. Also, the barbarian ruler would gain too much power and the senate will have to "remove" him ;).
she is the best ruler because she loves Canadian bacon.
Chandragupta Maurya was a good ruler. He was ruler from 322 BC to 298 BC. He died in the year of 298 BC.
he was a good ruler
A good one, he did many things that were of great benefit to the empire
yes, majority of the aztecs where happy with him.
British ruler, japan ruler, German ruler
Akbar is actually a Mughal Emperor who was The ruler in India during the early 1700s. Before Akbar's rule Mughal era was not well known. Akbar was very good with keeping perfect political relations. This ruler singlehandedly almost unfied India in all its multi-ethinicity. However he was still an invader from the west. Hence it is quite ambiguious where he lies on terms of being a good or bad ruler. But in comparison to his grandson aurangazeb who desecrated andd destroyed temples, Akbar was a very good ruler. So yea make your choice.
The Ancient Greek Bad Ruler Was Alexander The Great I Think.
He was neither; as a ruler and conquerer, he did good things but did bad things ei. killed many people when invading and conquering there country.
No, he was a dictator, dictators are not good rulers. ^ | | Not all dictators are BAD people. Some have done well.
Yes, he was a good ruler
King Tutankhamun died far to young to be a good ruler. He also was not in good health.