To continue the 'Greatest' theme I was wondering who you thought was the greatest Roman leader/politician?

I cant post an exhaustive list so please feel free to make full use of the 'Other' option.:)

Hail Caesar!

He got the Roman Empire rolling as an empire.
And besides, he conquered Gaul-and what ruler wouldn't want to control a place named Gaul?

And he was such a nice guy - he left $75 for every Roman in his will.

It's too bad that Shakespeare makes him seem like such a loser.

Augustus. Long live the Emperor!

A tough choice, but I'm going for Trajan.

Julius Caesar was a military genius but lacked political tact, as evidenced by his assassination by members of the senate. Augustus was much more of a political ruler, truly transforming the Republic into an Empire. Trajan had the best qualities of both.

I voted for Julius Caesar, because he was the most important person to influence Rome, apart from the early reign (and from civ you know that the early game decides on your long-term success). Caesar was also an incredible conqueror and if you ever have latin at school you will love what he wrote, because it is more straightforward than any other author.

Augustus would not have been possible without Caesar, so I would put him in second place.

Originally posted by test_specimen
Caesar was also an incredible conqueror and if you ever have latin at school you will love what he wrote, because it is more straightforward than any other author.



He practically invented the soundbite. Do we praise him or blame him?

Numa Pompilius was considered one of the best rulers of Rome.
from the later years I'd say Julius Caesar and Augustus

Originally posted by napoleon526
Julius Caesar was a military genius but lacked political tact, as evidenced by his assassination by members of the senate. Augustus was much more of a political ruler, truly transforming the Republic into an Empire.

True, but JC could have just been ahead of his time.

If Augustus went and became the first emperor, the Senate might have killed him instead.

JC had plenty of political tact, he just went about campaigning to the wrong crowd, forgetting his target audience should have been the rich and powerful.

Augustus.

Augustus, bye Republic, hello bad-ass empire.

What happened to Scipio, Camillus, Antoninus Pius and Justinian? :rolleyes:

I voted Augustus BTW

Originally posted by Kafka2


He practically invented the soundbite. Do we praise him or blame him?

What's "soundbite"? Couldn't find it in the dictionary.

Originally posted by Parsifal
What happened to Scipio, Camillus, Antoninus Pius and Justinian? :rolleyes:

I voted Augustus BTW

I cant post an exhaustive list so please feel free to make full use of the 'Other' option.

It is only an arbitary list. That is why the other option is there and I invited you to use it if your 'guy' wasnt on listed.

Many of the posters won't know anything about anyone other than the Julio-Claudians. They won't understand the likes of the miraculous reign of Diocletian.

And I see there are no Gore Vidal fans to vote for the good old apostate.

Sure, Diocletian was a great guy, he was the one who made all sorts of reforms and pretty much saved the empire for a while, right?

But still, I'm sticking with JC.

in spirit in was Cincinattus,a dictator of Rome who after the crisis was over over vary honorablly left the position peacefully to continue a life as farmer, when most nobles would have attempted to keep the position, but otherwise a close call between Trajan and Agustus, but i'm leaning to Trajan

Defenitely not Marcus Aurelius. His wars had been more a "peace war" where he tried to stregthen the borders and to make "peace". He was surely no conqueror.

BTW: His role is much misinterpreted in the movie "Gladiator" (His son Commudus gets even more misinterpreted there...)

I go for Julius Caesar.. The man who invented Imperialism.

well, either Diocletian, Constantine or Justinian, unless u go all the way back to 753bc, then i would hav to say Romulus, gota love the way he gave Rome that population boost through raping sabines, but im thinking either Diocletian or Constantine as the major contenders

You left Nero and Caligula off of the list.

What if someone wanted to vote for one of them?

Julian the Apostate (and no I'm not a fan of Gore Vidal's, though his Live from Golgotha was interesting), quite simply for trying to resurrect the lifeforce of the Roman World - the good old (tongue in cheek) Hellenic/Roman values.

With Christianity came Byzantium which is a whole new ball game.

In practical terms however no one had a larger impact on the Roman Empire than Augustus (who skillfully interwove Ceasar into his life no less). From building projects, to diplomacy, to competent military generals kept in line and in check, to unmatched manipulation of the Senate (no emperor had this to contend with as the Senate was merely a rubber stamp institution in later Rome), no one shined as bright as Augustus in the range of his achievments. The likes of Hadrian and the other 'greats' had absolute power bestowed on them through the endowments of Augustus which ranged from divine status (he created the imperial cult) to absolute power (by manipulating the Republic's power). It was this power which enabled them to do what they did. They owe it all to him. Julius Ceasar was a GREAT military tactician (far better than Augustus) and a competent politician (not of the calibre of Augustus), but he lacked the cohesive strengths of Augustus. He did not invent imperialism (Rome was a monarchy before it was a Republic), nor was his First Man of Rome/Dictatorship novel. Sulla, Marius and the likes of the other Triumvirs also lent a hand in undoing the Republic. It was Augustus who finally managed to do this and it was no easy feat...

must dash...class to teach and students knocking on my door...

I'd say:
1. Augustus
2. Caesar
3. Marcus Aurelius

Just remembered a thread I opened ages ago on this topic:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17801

juilius ceasor was a tyrant and through his ambition and ego did more harm to rome than good. Augustas was the man and did the most good for rome. I would agree julius was the most interesting and very worthy of study but that does'nt make him great.

Whats with these ancient bumbs?

Anyway, i recommend reading The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome for another view of Julius, unless you already have done that. Truth is probably between that and the traditional view.

Well, I have two people.

Julius Caesar, of course for reasons mentioned above.

But, I would also add Aëtius as a contender. As Rome was collapsing in the 400s, he was the man that held Roman authority in Gaul. He was a great military commander, but when the Huns invaded in 451, he also showed that he was a good politician as well - he prevented many barbarian tribes from defecting to Attila, especially the vital Visigoths. Then, he goes on the engage the seemingly invincible Huns and win one of the most important victories in Europe - leading to the Hun Empire declining. Unfortunetly, he was assassinated in 454 - and after he died, the Roman Empire collapsed.

Supposedly, the only reason Attila fought Aëtius at the Battle of Chalons was because: in a prophecy, Attila was told that he would lose the battle, but one of the enemy leaders would be slain. Attila was ready to sacrifice his army to kill Aëtius. Unfortunetly, Attila did lose the battle, but the enemy leader killed was Theodoric, the Visigoth king.

*shrug*

voted marius, since he smoothed the way for this whole empire thing...

overall i'd say there were people far more important for roman culture than consuls or imperors, like architects, lawyers or poets...

Augustas was the man and did the most good for rome..
The same 'man' who emasculated the military? :p Come on, Augustus didn't even have real kids, just stepchildren. What a failure.

Why isn't Nero on that list?

Why isn't Nero on that list?
Good question. Most people, colored by Suetonius' propagandizing, have this opinion of him as a fat bisexual deviant totalitarian deluded nutjob with a bigger Oedipal complex than Oedipus himself. But he really wasn't all that bad - mostly he just tried to push through pro-lower class reforms and limit the power of the aristocracy, and he even had a pretty successful general (Corbulo), so the Senate got pissy and when the dust finally settled from the whole Year of Four Emperors business decided to demonize him.

Augustus, hands down.

Best would probably be Trajan and most famous probably JC but im going to go with Augustus as the greatest Roman leader.

Good question. Most people, colored by Suetonius' propagandizing, have this opinion of him as a fat bisexual deviant totalitarian deluded nutjob with a bigger Oedipal complex than Oedipus himself. But he really wasn't all that bad - mostly he just tried to push through pro-lower class reforms and limit the power of the aristocracy, and he even had a pretty successful general (Corbulo), so the Senate got pissy and when the dust finally settled from the whole Year of Four Emperors business decided to demonize him.

Well yes but just being 'not as bad as made out' does not make him 'that good' either, nevermind the greatest!

Well yes but just being 'not as bad as made out' does not make him 'that good' either, nevermind the greatest!
He did a lot more for the poor and the slaves than most emperors, and he had successes in Armenia and Britain (though those were partly not of his own making), he dealt with the Fire of Roma very well, and he pissed on the aristocracy, which always gets points from me. Compared to that, Augustus failed in Germania, ruined his adoptive father's army, and really didn't do much better than act as a 'bridge' between the ages of the republic and of the Dominate. The Principate was a terrible system of governance, with the mailed fist concealed only sometimes by a threadbare velvet glove, and it was all too prone to usurpations and that overweening Praetorian guard (in the first two centuries or so anyway) with the vacuum Augustus left at the center. Basically, Augustus mortgaged his empire's future to the likelihood of Roma not ever having any real enemies. When this didn't hold true - when the Parthians were destroyed and replaced by the Sassanids in Eranshahr - his ramshackle edifice, which never really did have anything save for a few of the trappings of the earlier age, fell completely apart, and had to be rebuilt, painstakingly, by poor Gallienus and the Illyrian emperors.

Yes, I blame Augustus for the Crisis of the Third Century. :p Also, sunspots.

nero was a terrible emporor, probably the worst for Rome. so he tried to help the poor, big deal. being a humanitarian and lover of the arts doesn't make up for totally ruining the roman economy, devalueing their currency single handily and being otally incompetent on military manners. plus he was most likely insane, like for real insane. helping the poor doesn't make you a good leader if the whole house burns down while your doing it.

nero was a terrible emporor, probably the worst for Rome. so he tried to help the poor, big deal. being a humanitarian and lover of the arts doesn't make up for totally ruining the roman economy, devalueing their currency single handily and being otally incompetent on military manners. plus he was most likely insane, like for real insane. helping the poor doesn't make you a good leader if the whole house burns down while your doing it.


He burned down the poor's houses to build a palace and massacred thousands of Christians, including Peter and Paul. He was wicked insane and destroyed the economy.

he dealt with the Fire of Roma very well, and he pissed on the aristocracy, which always gets points from me.

He dealt with the fire very well? Didn't he waste a whole ton of money and appropriate a large portion of the city for his own palace?

Also, if you like it that leaders stick it to the aristocracy, why do you dislike that the principate "kept few of the trappings of the earlier age," which the aristocracy dominated?

He dealt with the fire very well? Didn't he waste a whole ton of money and appropriate a large portion of the city for his own palace?

Most of the area he took over was dedicated to gardens and public buildings, not just to the "Golden House". And even that was probably meant to be part palace, part public government centre - something the empire sorely lacked!

If there was something Nero did wrong, was not to flee Rome in time to join Rufus and return with his legions to cleanse the place of the praetorians and the senatorial aristocracy. The troubles of his reign (including the lack of money) were a consequence of the lack of central control that went back to Augustus' time.

totally ruining the roman economy, devalueing their currency single handily
Bread and circuses, man. The people of Roma loved him, and he probably helped avert the kind of social troubles that had wracked the Republic back before Caesar crossed the Rubicon. He did spend an awful lot of money, and it probably wasn't all going to the right places, and I'll be the first to admit that he did lots of frivolous junk too (although one must take a large chunk of what Suetonius says with a grain of salt). But 'ruining the Roman economy' is a bit much. Many of his decisions were taken in order to help the economy, actually, like making peace with Parthia early (instead of utterly annihilating them like Corbulo wanted) because of possible budget strains. He seems to have been a lot more concerned with the economy than most other Emperors and, all said and done, he probably did less damage to it than the civil war of 69 did.
and being otally incompetent on military manners.
Well, he fought one major war, that with Parthia, and knew enough to let his professional general, Corbulo, win it for him. He crushed all of the various rebellions (Boadicea's Iceni revolt, Vindex's revolt, the Jewish Zealot uprising) that came up during his reign, and did so with relatively little muss or fuss. Sure, he wasn't a genius, but he was competent enough to know that he wasn't a genius too and left all of the fighting to the professionals. That sounds shockingly like what Augustus did (with Agrippa replacing Corbulo), except Augustus made some bad choices with respect to his generals, like putting Varus in charge of Germania. Nero didn't. I don't see why he ought to get a bad rap for that.
plus he was most likely insane, like for real insane.
Personally, as I noted before, I think it's a smear job by Suetonius. Lots of other historians, like Josephus, Lucanus, and Chrysostom, talked about how he got a bad rap in their histories. And it's not like they had a good reason to be apologists, either, because Josephus actually helped revolt against Nero, being one of the Jews who fought with the Zealots in the revolt of the sixties. I guess I can blame my honorable relative Robert Graves for his excellent translation of Suetonius for disseminating the myth of Nero's insanity and megalomania amongst the casual imperial historians of the world.
He burned down the poor's houses to build a palace
He wasn't even there at the time, he was in Antium when the fire happened and came racing back to help with disaster relief as soon as he heard, opening the state grain stores to the poor, getting on the ball, and basically doing what Bush didn't do after Katrina. As noted by innonimatu, the palace didn't cover the entire sector of the damaged area, and it helped out by helping relieve unemployment due to its construction, although yes, of course, one of the main factors in Nero's mind when making it was "Gee, I'd like a bigger palace."
and massacred thousands of Christians, including Peter and Paul.
It made the vast majority of Romans feel better about the whole fire thing and it got rid of dissidents. Christians got beat up on by virtually everybody who got a chance between Augustus and Constantinus; why should Nero be any different?
He dealt with the fire very well? Didn't he waste a whole ton of money and appropriate a large portion of the city for his own palace?
Not really to the first, and yes to the second, although the size of the palace is a matter of debate and ranges from "sorta big" to "really freakin' huge". But, as mentioned, he opened up the grain stores to the poor immediately, gave shelter to the homeless, and provided entertainment in the form of killing off Christians (bread and circuses). Changing the city plan of Roma from "terrible and confusing and generally a mudhole of squalor and disgusting junk" to "relatively organized" was also a nice side benefit.
Also, if you like it that leaders stick it to the aristocracy, why do you dislike that the principate "kept a few of the trappings of the earlier age," which the aristocracy dominated?
That's not what I said; I didn't like the principate for keeping any of them at all. :p The Senate was basically broken after 133 BC; before then it wasn't all that bad, but after they got their hands on the Pergamene wealth, there isn't much good left. (Politically, anyway. Culturally, it was a fantastic period. Of course.) Quote fixed for you.

EDIT: Look, I'm not saying that I would have voted for Nero were he on the poll. I'm saying that he'd be a reasonable addition and that he was an awful lot better than some of the idiots on the list. I can't see why nobody before Marius is worthy (Dentatus? Camillus? Africanus? Aemilianus? Cincinnatus? Aemilius Paullus of Pydna? Titus Flaminius of Kynoskephalai?) and why nobody after Constantinus gets the nod either (some of the Eastern Roman emperors were pretty awesome too, like Herakleios, one of my favorite leaders of all time).

Christians got beat up on by virtually everybody who got a chance between Augustus and Constantinus; why should Nero be any different?

Not really. Though Christians were occasionally executed, they were rarely sought out (with direct Imperial support) until Decius.

Not really. Though Christians were occasionally executed, they were rarely sought out (with direct Imperial support) until Decius.
Okay, fine, so the Emperor usually didn't do it himself, fair enough. Mostly because they were too small a sect for a very long time to need to do anything about.

He burned down the poor's houses to build a palace and massacred thousands of Christians, including Peter and Paul. He was wicked insane and destroyed the economy.

To say that Nero "massacred thousands of Christians" is ridiculous. There weren't thousands of Christians in Nero's day; if he'd done that he'd have annihilated the religion completely. He killed some Christians in a typically sadistic way. However, very little is known about this persecution, and it is unlikely that he actually outlawed Christianity. Also, it is far from certain whether Peter and Paul perished in that persecution, although it is reasonably likely.

It made the vast majority of Romans feel better about the whole fire thing and it got rid of dissidents. Christians got beat up on by virtually everybody who got a chance between Augustus and Constantinus; why should Nero be any different?

That is quite wrong, and not only because persecutions were intermittent. Nero was the first persecutor of Christians, which is why he is such a hate figure in Revelation (he is the head of the beast that has been injured and recovered, a reference to the popular conspiracy theory in the later first century AD to the effect that Nero had faked his own death, was still alive, and would return with an army to reclaim his throne). No-one bothered about Christians before Nero.

As someone said, persecutions were very intermittent for most of the time after that, and depended largely upon the attitude of the local governor. Most governors really weren't too bothered about Christianity, and the official policy as specified by Trajan and Hadrian was not to seek out Christians but to deal with any that turned up, and to punish people who falsely denounced "Christians" as well. For most of the second century Christians were mostly fairly safe and we even hear of Christians demonstrating outside the houses of governors who tried to crack down on them, which indicates that it was quite a rare thing to happen. The accounts of the martyrs from this time also generally portray Roman officials as giving the accused every opportunity to renounce their faith, because they didn't want to execute apparently blameless citizens for no good reason. Tertullian tells of one governor who, instead of forcing Christians to sacrifice, merely had them read out a pagan statement of faith that was so vaguely worded that it was acceptable to Christians as well; if they agreed he let them go.

In the late second and the third centuries there is evidence that governors tended to be stricter to Christians, sometimes perhaps in fear of pagan and Jewish anti-Christian mobs. The famous martyrdoms in Lyons in AD 177 seem to have been motivated in part by mob attacks. However, there were only five times when there were coordinated persecutions throughout the Roman empire. The first was in AD 202-06, when there were persecutions in Rome, Carthage, Corinth, and Alexandria, and the authorities seem to have ignored the clergy and arrested only new converts, presumably in an attempt to discourage others from joining the movement. The second was in AD 236 under the emperor Maximin, but this lasted only as long as Maximin's government, which wasn't long at all. The third was the famous Decian persecution of AD 249, when all citizens of the empire were commanded to sacrifice to the gods - but this wasn't a targeted persecution of Christians in particular. After the day of sacrifice passed, there was no attempt to chase non-sacrificing Christians. The fourth was Valerian's persecution in AD 257, which was similar but much more thorough and severe; in this persecution Christian leaders were targeted and tortured in an attempt to make them renounce their faith, thereby breaking the spirit of the religion. Finally, there was the Great Persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, which began in AD 302 and lasted until AD 311 when Galerius, on his deathbed, reversed it and ordered the Christians to pray for him.

In between these persecutions, Christians enjoyed virtually complete peace and were often on good terms with the authorities: Origen had meetings with governors and even empresses where he discussed Christian theology. Victor of Rome was able to ask Commodus' mistress to release Christians from prison, and she did. The emperor Philip, who ruled in the 240s, was so sympathetic to Christians that many thought he was one. Also, even in the persecutions, not many people actually died. The total number of Christians martyred in all the Roman persecutions put together is impossible to know, but it should probably be numbered in the hundreds or low thousands at most.

Finally, it's not true that the persecutions ended only with Constantine. After Valerian, there were no persecutions except that of Diocletian and Galerius, and Galerius was undoubtedly the prime mover behind that. After Diocletian and Maximian abdicated in AD 305, only Galerian - who became emperor of the east - continued the persecutions. Constantius Chlorus - who became emperor of the west - ended them immediately (although he destroyed a few churches). When he died, his son Constantine continued the same policy, and Maxentius, who seized control of Italy and north Africa, did exactly the same thing. So when Constantine and Licinius issued the so-called Edict of Milan in AD 313, they were merely extending to the eastern empire (at that time under the control of Maximinus, whom they regarded as a usurper, and who was the only one still persecuting Christians) the same de facto legalisation of Christianity that already existed in the west.

Okay, fine, so the Emperor usually didn't do it himself, fair enough. Mostly because they were too small a sect for a very long time to need to do anything about.

No emperor ever needed to do anything about Christians, who did no harm to the empire at all and were probably better citizens than most people: for one thing, they weren't in the habit of murdering their children or killing their wives via lethal abortion techniques, which ought to have pleased most emperors since they were endlessly trying to encourage people to have more children (between the second and fourth centuries, the population of the empire was in decline, except amongst Christians). But I don't think the reason why most emperors left the Christians alone was because the sect was too small to worry about (although it was) - I think it was simply because they had no reason to need to persecute them. Most of the persecutions I mentioned above occurred because, in a time of crisis (or perceived crisis), the emperor wanted everyone to sacrifice to the traditional gods, and this for two reasons: first, to invoke their supernatural aid in handling the crisis, and second, to arouse everyone's patriotic feelings and ensure that there was unity. Those Christians who refused to sacrifice got into trouble as a sort of side effect. The only imperially ordered persecution of Christians where Christians were the deliberate and sole target was the Great Persecution, and the person who really hated them was Galerius, not Diocletian. It's not certain why, but Lactantius tells us that Galerius' mother was a very devout pagan who got annoyed with the local Christians because they refused to come to her feasts, and he inherited her attitude.

Julius Caeser was the greatest, and in fact one of the most notable men of all times.

Augustus hands down.

I go with Augustus, but I hate picking a "best" one. There were A NUMBER of "best" ones.

A tough choice, but I'm going for Trajan.

Trajan had the best qualities of both.

but otherwise a close call between Trajan and Agustus, but i'm leaning to Trajan

As per Trajan, whilst unarguably a brilliant leader his achievements created some serious long term problems for the empire. Namely his conquest (Read: Massacre and looting) of Dacia. All the treasure he brought back was pretty welcome, for the goverment at least. It financed pretty much all of Trajan's public works and probably kept the empire fiscally solvent for a good few decades on its own. Trajan was certainly a mighty good pillager. Of course, all the new gold and silver that poured into Rome didn't do much for a civilian economy. It brought with it a quite serious case of inflation, but nobody was really bothered about that. It pretty much only affected the plebs after all.

For the empire, then, the problem with invading Dacia was, well, Dacia. Trajan pushed over a lovely defensible border called the Danube in order to occupy a land roughly bordered by mountain ranges. With no defensible frontiers to speak of. Strategically, this was really not good for Rome. The Province would be abandoned before 300AD, but that was the least of Rome's problems. Dacia became the porous membrane through wich huge numbers of 'barbarians' would seep into the empire. Hadrian (Trajan's successor) seriously considered abandoning it and withdrawing to the Danube. Unfortunately, Rome under Trajan had sent huge numbers of Romans to colonize depopulated Dacia. Withdrawal was not an option. Thus Dacia become the avenue through which the various non-Roman migrations made their way into Rome. The Goths came first. They forced Romans to essentially abandon the province post-250AD. Alaric was born in Dacia about a century later, he went on to conquer Rome. The Goths also causes the Vandals to migrate into Rome. They had been settled rather peacefully both sides of the Danube. After passing the frontier they eventually found a home in North Africa/Southern Spain. Finally, the Hunnic migrations seems to have passed through Dacia and into the Empire (albeit mainly as mercenaries). All of which makes one wonder whether Rome might have been better off not starting a genocidal war of aggression for once, and rather keeping Dacia as a nice buffer-state. I know hindsight is 20-20, but it can't help but take the lustre of Trajans achievements.

N.B I'd go for Augustus.

For the empire, then, the problem with invading Dacia was, well, Dacia. Trajan pushed over a lovely defensible border called the Danube in order to occupy a land roughly bordered by mountain ranges. With no defensible frontiers to speak of. Strategically, this was really not good for Rome.
One of my favorite books, Luttwak's The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, gives a fairly good reason for this. Dacia did have a few advantages to its occupation, both economic and grand-strategic.


The Dacians, as compared with the other tribes on Roma's border, had a developed economy above subsistence level, so seizing the territory would be economically viable without centuries' worth of infrastructure construction and development as did Roman Gallia and Roman Britannia (and Germania).
The Danubean tribes were one of the major weak links in the Roman imperial defense system. In order to prevent the Iazyges (in OMD western Hungary) with uniting with the other tribes along the Danubean border, the Romani captured Dacia to split them up literally, instead of relying on subsidies. Keeping the Danubean tribes apart kept the Moesian frontier quiet for over a hundred years.
The aforementioned plunder.


In addition, the Danubean frontier isn't particularly a great way of defending things when you think about it. Maintenance of a cordon defense never really is a bright idea: if you try to be strong everywhere, you are strong nowhere, and if you make strongpoints the enemy will bypass them. So for the first century of the Empire's existence, the Romani used a system of client kings and bribe-based diplomacy to keep the barbarians fighting each other before they fought Roma. That way the cordon defense was relatively unnecessary, and Augustus' legacy (the incredibly weakened military) didn't have to try to overexert itself. By Traianus' time, though, the movement of wealth north had made client kings more impervious to Roman bribery, as did the diffusion of agricultural technology into barbarian territory (sparking the revolutionary changes in barbarian lifestyle that led to them gaining sufficient population to actually become a threat to Roma in the third and fifth centuries, as it would happen), which allowed for a greater accumulation of wealth on the parts of the overkings and warlords that were loosely 'in charge'. In any event, Traianus was interested in a better solution than a cordon, river-based defense. Dacia served as a speed bump for the barbarians in that regard; its relatively meager forces were able to absorb the impact of many invasions towards the Danube and its existence certainly aided the defense of Thraicia and Graecia during the Crisis of the Third Century.
Dacia became the porous membrane through wich huge numbers of 'barbarians' would seep into the empire.
Not at all; most of them went either for the Rhine frontier or through Pannonia to Illyricum and Aquileia (which became known as Italia's doorstep for the sheer number of times it was sacked by barbarians).
Alaric was born in Dacia about a century later, he went on to conquer Rome.
That doesn't mean much. So Goths lived in Dacia after the Romani left; that's better than them living in Thracia before the Battle of Adrianople. (Incidentally, Alaric was a member of those Tervingi and Greuthungi who settled in Thracia...wouldn't consider him a Dacian by any means at all.) Anyway, I can't see what that has to do with Traianus' seizure of Dacia being a bad thing; if he hadn't, the Goths simply would have gone farther in the third century...:confused:
The Goths also causes the Vandals to migrate into Rome. They had been settled rather peacefully both sides of the Danube.
False. Vandali (Silingi and Hasdingi) lived originally in Bohemia (possibly descended from the Marcomanni and Boii that Marcus Aurelius fought) and their invasion took them across the Rhine into Gallia, thence to Spain. They never touched Dacia, and they had nothing to do with the Goths, except that they took advantage of Alaric's invasion of Italia to move even further through Gaul (the fact that there was also a usurper in Britannia and Gallia, fighting a civil war, certainly helped to distract the Western Roman central authority).
Finally, the Hunnic migrations seems to have passed through Dacia and into the Empire (albeit mainly as mercenaries).
Also false; they went through Pannonia (OMD Hungary), which became the center of their empire.
All of which makes one wonder whether Rome might have been better off not starting a genocidal war of aggression for once, and rather keeping Dacia as a nice buffer-state.
We actually don't know enough about the causes of the Dacian War to assume Traianus started it. The fact that there are only something like two sentence fragments from Traianus' book on the war (in that neighborhood anyway; don't remember the exact number) sort of prevents us from knowing all that much about it.
I know hindsight is 20-20, but it can't help but take the lustre of Trajans achievements.
Oh, if you wanted to do that, there are much better ways to do it.

He started that whole Parthian war and conquered Mesopotamia; if the idiot had left the Parthians in control of the place, they probably wouldn't have destabilized so badly in the next century and left the door open for the Sassanians, who established a protonationalistic Persian government and who were actually able to mobilize the resources of Persia effectively, creating a superpower on Roma's border and precipitating a major fiscal and strategic crisis that wouldn't be resolved until the time of the Tetrarchy.
Leaving Hatra in his rear instead of simply capturing the place; it was a strongpoint, but its independence and resistance forced Hadrian to give up Mesopotamia.

He started that whole Parthian war and conquered Mesopotamia; if the idiot had left the Parthians in control of the place, they probably wouldn't have destabilized so badly in the next century and left the door open for the Sassanians, who established a protonationalistic Persian government and who were actually able to mobilize the resources of Persia effectively, creating a superpower on Roma's border and precipitating a major fiscal and strategic crisis that wouldn't be resolved until the time of the Tetrarchy.
Leaving Hatra in his rear instead of simply capturing the place; it was a strongpoint, but its independence and resistance forced Hadrian to give up Mesopotamia.

But how could he have known that those things would happen? It's very easy to look back and say "he should have done that, because years after his death [...]". He didn't have some kind of magic mirror to see in the future.

Let's look at it this way: if one evening, on my way home, just for a change, I choose a different street to walk on, that is equally long, wide, etc to the one I'm used to, and some guy comes with a gun from around the corner, mugs me and kills me, was my decision of going on a different street wrong? NO! It was NOT wrong. The decision had absolutely terrible consequences, but I did not make a "wrong" choice since I had no way of knowing that would happen!

So I think a better way of looking at Trajan's decisions is this: Trajan did manage to conquer Mesopotamia, Dacia, etc. Thus, he achieved what he wanted with amazing brilliance in his military campaigns.

Now, I agree that achieving what you want is not always a good thing (example: if I want to ruin the empire, and I do, I achieved what I wanted, but that doesn't make me a good ruler), but was there ANY way for him to predict what would happen with, say, Mesopotamia, after his death? That, as you said, in the next century they would destabilize because of his conquest? I think there is absolutely no way he could have known that, and thus he is a ruler that made the best choices for the time frame he could predict. One could say he was an unlucky ruler, because it was his decisions that turned out to be unfortunate in the very long run. And yes, I know it is strange to call the Emperor who got an empire as magnificent as Rome to its maximum extent in history "unlucky", but I think that from this point of view, he definitely was, and the unfortunate long-term effects could not have been predicted in his lifetime.

I wondered how few votes marcus aurelius took

Marcus Aurelius was good, philosophical, humane, etc, but he also persecuted Christians extensively. Besides, Augustus was better. Can't compete with Augustus!

Why Augustus ? He did have a peaceful rule in general , there was prosperity but then again there where other emperors with similar archievements where they not ? I just think that he just attented into getting praise for him self and concentrading the spotlights on him more than others. And the fact that he is the one that continued from where Ceasar left with , with the transformation of the republic to an empire. But .... I want someone else.

Also @Dachspmg , Why such a fondness for Heracletos ?

Marcus Aurelius was good, philosophical, humane, etc, but he also persecuted Christians extensively.

No he didn't, not extensively. As I said before, there were no "extensive" persecutions of Christians until the third century, and even then, only a couple.

But how could he have known that those things would happen? It's very easy to look back and say "he should have done that, because years after his death [...]". He didn't have some kind of magic mirror to see in the future.
Leaving Hatra in his rear was an obvious mistake; the inability to predict the fall of the Parthian Empire doesn't excuse him from failing to seize that city before advancing further into Mesopotamia. As for ransacking Ctesiphon...given that the Parthians were already in an unstable position, and never were particularly powerful, certainly not enough to threaten Roman holdings, it's a simple matter of 'wetting the beak'. It would've been smarter just to take advantage of the Parthians' inherent weakness by constantly raiding them and forcing them to give up tribute and plunder, but without attacking them so much that their relatively weak hegemony in Iran turns into a disaster. Sacking Ctesiphon three times (IIRC) in a hundred years really pushed them down the road towards that. As for conquest of Mesopotamia itself, Roma didn't really have the support amongst the population there for such a measure, and wouldn't even come close until the Christian era, when Christianity got a real foothold in Mesopotamia. And it wasn't really the same as barbarian Dacia or Gallia, where the Romans could just colonize and overwhelm the natives; Mesopotamia is too populous for that.
Now, I agree that achieving what you want is not always a good thing (example: if I want to ruin the empire, and I do, I achieved what I wanted, but that doesn't make me a good ruler), but was there ANY way for him to predict what would happen with, say, Mesopotamia, after his death? That, as you said, in the next century they would destabilize because of his conquest? I think there is absolutely no way he could have known that, and thus he is a ruler that made the best choices for the time frame he could predict. One could say he was an unlucky ruler, because it was his decisions that turned out to be unfortunate in the very long run. And yes, I know it is strange to call the Emperor who got an empire as magnificent as Rome to its maximum extent in history "unlucky", but I think that from this point of view, he definitely was, and the unfortunate long-term effects could not have been predicted in his lifetime.
Parthia was already in trouble. Even at its height, when Surenas had annihilated Crassus' army and was poised to invade Roman Syria, Parthia couldn't make a dent in Roman territory. They consistently got the worse of the wars in Armenia and Mesopotamia. And the inherent disadvantages of not actually being a Persian dynasty, having to rely on settled nomads as a powerbase, weakened them further. Traianus was a freakin' genius, yes, but he made the Hatra error and he wasn't able to predict the awfully deleterious effect that his invasion would have on Parthia. I mean, honestly, was Parthamaspates going to be able to hold onto power without Mesopotamia? If Hadrian hadn't abandoned it, the Parthian king would have fallen a hundred years early, the Romans would've been stuck with a populous territory that didn't much like them, a Jewish revolt in their rear (admittedly, Traianus wasn't going to be able to predict that too well), a possibly resurgent native Persian dynasty in the Zagros, and Hatra stuck in the middle of it all preventing the Romans from holding onto Mesopotamia.
Also @Dachspmg , Why such a fondness for Heracletos ?
I like Herakleios because of his brilliant seven year campaign against the Sassanids, that started in 622 on the Hellespont, and moved through the ancient and hallowed battle site of Issos; saw Roman armies marching and countermarching through Armenia, Atropatene, and Anatolia, and even an expedition deep into Persia at Esfahan; a desperate and successful defense of Constantinople from the Persians and their Avar lackeys; and finally, an epic victory among the ruins of Nineveh itself. He brought the Empire from the brink of defeat and ignominy to its crowning glory, recovered the True Cross and established those handy themes that would end up saving the empire. If he hadn't inconveniently got dropsy and been forced to yield the Levant and Egypt to Khalid ibn al-Walid and the Arab invaders, he'd probably rank ahead of Friedrich II in my book, at the same level as Napoleon, Alexander, and Genghis. (I still think that if he'd been at Yarmuk instead of Theodoros, the whole Arab invasion would have been stillborn. Sigh.)

I like Herakleios because of his brilliant seven year campaign against the Sassanids, that started in 622 on the Hellespont, and moved through the ancient and hallowed battle site of Issos; saw Roman armies marching and countermarching through Armenia, Atropatene, and Anatolia, and even an expedition deep into Persia at Esfahan; a desperate and successful defense of Constantinople from the Persians and their Avar lackeys; and finally, an epic victory among the ruins of Nineveh itself. He brought the Empire from the brink of defeat and ignominy to its crowning glory, recovered the True Cross and established those handy themes that would end up saving the empire. If he hadn't inconveniently got dropsy and been forced to yield the Levant and Egypt to Khalid ibn al-Walid and the Arab invaders, he'd probably rank ahead of Friedrich II in my book, at the same level as Napoleon, Alexander, and Genghis. (I still think that if he'd been at Yarmuk instead of Theodoros, the whole Arab invasion would have been stillborn. Sigh.)

I don't think Napoleon is on the same level as Alexander and Genghis but anyway : I also like Heraclios for another reason : (Taken from the wikipedia page) Heraclius also Hellenised the Empire by largely discontinuing the use of Latin as its official language, replacing it with Greek. The empire continued to call itself Roman throughout the rest of its history, but the term also increasingly came to be used as a Greek self-descriptive.

I think he was a very good emperor but was unable to archieve greatness maybe due to circumstance. I mean what he gained in territory , he soon lost it.

I think he was a very good emperor but was unable to archieve greatness maybe due to circumstance. I mean what he gained in territory , he soon lost it.
Thing is, he technically didn't gain anything; Gibbon's quote was, IIRC, that he was unwilling to enlarge the weakness of the empire, which makes an awful lot of sense. He wasn't going to be able to hold onto any conquests, so why bother? :P But yeah, I agree with you; there wasn't much he could have done about getting sick like he did in his later years.

Thing is, he technically didn't gain anything; Gibbon's quote was, IIRC, that he was unwilling to enlarge the weakness of the empire, which makes an awful lot of sense. He wasn't going to be able to hold onto any conquests, so why bother? :P But yeah, I agree with you; there wasn't much he could have done about getting sick like he did in his later years.

Granted but that does not make him so great does it ? I am going with Constantine who not only beated the Franks,Alemani and other barbarians continuisly but also had decesive victories in the civil wars that followed managing to reunite the empire. And not only that by creating Constantinoupoli , Half-adopting Christianity (making it legal) and working for creating a fame around him self as an emperor related to divine intervention he managed to create the crenedials necessary for the successful eastern roman empire.

Granted but that does not make him so great does it ?
Well, he's not a poll option so I didn't vote for him. :p And I would vote solely on the basis of the Last Persian War if he was anyway, because that is one of the greatest accomplishments in military history.

Hail Caesar!

Ave Caesar!

which one btw?

which one btw?
The 'good' one. :p One hopes he means that polymath, Gaius Iulius, who won that fun civil war, beat up on the French while they were still barbarians, and who was a Great Captain of History in general. And who wrote lots of books in the passive voice.

You mean "Books written in the passive voice were written by him." :mischief:

Constantine vs Cesar then ? Who do you think achieved the most ? Both led the foundations for over the Roman empire to be remorn (or just born). (Heraclios is inferior to them .... IMO).

Constantine vs Cesar then ? Who do you think achieved the most ? Both led the foundations for over the Roman empire to be remorn (or just born).
I think that a lot of both of their accomplishments can be attributed to other men. Constantinus got an awful lot of help from Diocletian on price reforms and budgetary issues, for example, while Caesar's army was in large part due to the Marian reforms. I think that Caesar was a greater leader than Constantinus (being a polymath and more militarily skilled), but that the latter ended up doing more for the Roman state - the founding of Constantinople on the site of Byzantion being one of the most pivotal events in world history, while Caesar died before he could implement many of the changes he had planned. If that makes sense. Which it probably doesn't. :p
(Heraclios is inferior to them .... IMO).
Thanks for the dig. :p Like I said, I'm in awe of Herakleios' great campaign every time I read about it. Nobody has come close to that in the entire remainder of all the annals of warfare, save perhaps Caesar and Megas Alexandros (Genghis and Napoleon are, yes, equal to them in terms of overall military genius, but Caesar, Alexandros, and Herakleios did it in much less time) but neither of them faced such a tremendous disadvantage at the start. The victory of Herakleios over the Sassanids is the ultimate underdog story, which is why I like it so much. Constantinus' efforts would have all come to naught had Herakleios failed in his campaign against Khusrau. The Sassanids, a far weaker state, would have occupied the territories of the Empire...and then would come the Muslims. And judging from the performance of the Sassanid state in the face of Muslim invaders in OTL, I believe that Islam would probably have spread over most of Europe, virtually eradicating Christianity, had not Herakleios managed his great victories. Which may or may not be a good thing, but it sure as hell would be awfully important.

I think that a lot of both of their accomplishments can be attributed to other men. Constantinus got an awful lot of help from Diocletian on price reforms and budgetary issues, for example, while Caesar's army was in large part due to the Marian reforms. I think that Caesar was a greater leader than Constantinus (being a polymath and more militarily skilled), but that the latter ended up doing more for the Roman state - the founding of Constantinople on the site of Byzantion being one of the most pivotal events in world history, while Caesar died before he could implement many of the changes he had planned. If that makes sense. Which it probably doesn't. :p

Thanks for the dig. :p Like I said, I'm in awe of Herakleios' great campaign every time I read about it. Nobody has come close to that in the entire remainder of all the annals of warfare, save perhaps Caesar and Megas Alexandros (Genghis and Napoleon are, yes, equal to them in terms of overall military genius, but Caesar, Alexandros, and Herakleios did it in much less time) but neither of them faced such a tremendous disadvantage at the start. The victory of Herakleios over the Sassanids is the ultimate underdog story, which is why I like it so much. Constantinus' efforts would have all come to naught had Herakleios failed in his campaign against Khusrau. The Sassanids, a far weaker state, would have occupied the territories of the Empire...and then would come the Muslims. And judging from the performance of the Sassanid state in the face of Muslim invaders in OTL, I believe that Islam would probably have spread over most of Europe, virtually eradicating Christianity, had not Herakleios managed his great victories. Which may or may not be a good thing, but it sure as hell would be awfully important.


I think that a lot of both of their accomplishments can be attributed to other men. Constantinus got an awful lot of help from Diocletian on price reforms and budgetary issues, for example, while Caesar's army was in large part due to the Marian reforms. I think that Caesar was a greater leader than Constantinus (being a polymath and more militarily skilled), but that the latter ended up doing more for the Roman state - the founding of Constantinople on the site of Byzantion being one of the most pivotal events in world history, while Caesar died before he could implement many of the changes he had planned. If that makes sense. Which it probably doesn't. :p

Well the counteranswer would be that both Constantine and Ceasar had to fight many battles both with barbarians and at Civil wars and they did need (i guees Ceasar was better in that regard tactical superiority in many cases to win.

You may be right about Heraclios but Ceasar accomplishments are no joke. He beat Pompey outnumbered and also Vestrinquix( i butchered the name but i suppose you know who i am talking about).

Not only where they both military geniuses but they actually where great propagandists getting the army and others on their side. I just consider Ceasar supeior in military themes while Constantine was better at not only getting power but solidifying his position to it. Which is just as important. Remember Ceasar left the empire at Civil war which could have been a much larger disaster.

In my scale Military victories and eliminating all your local enemies and moving the capital at the time most needed , make him the best.

Caesar may have given much but his early death and his inability to prevent it is a failure.


Thanks for the dig. Like I said, I'm in awe of Herakleios' great campaign every time I read about it. Nobody has come close to that in the entire remainder of all the annals of warfare, save perhaps Caesar and Megas Alexandros (Genghis and Napoleon are, yes, equal to them in terms of overall military genius, but Caesar, Alexandros, and Herakleios did it in much less time) but neither of them faced such a tremendous disadvantage at the start. The victory of Herakleios over the Sassanids is the ultimate underdog story, which is why I like it so much. Constantinus' efforts would have all come to naught had Herakleios failed in his campaign against Khusrau. The Sassanids, a far weaker state, would have occupied the territories of the Empire...and then would come the Muslims. And judging from the performance of the Sassanid state in the face of Muslim invaders in OTL, I believe that Islam would probably have spread over most of Europe, virtually eradicating Christianity, had not Herakleios managed his great victories. Which may or may not be a good thing, but it sure as hell would be awfully important.

Alright ... do you have any sources where the whole war is better documented so i can check it out ? I have my general Roman empire history books but none specific on this matter.

Well the counteranswer would be that both Constantine and Ceasar had to fight many battles both with barbarians and at Civil wars and they did need (i guees Ceasar was better in that regard tactical superiority in many cases to win.

You may be right about Heraclios but Ceasar accomplishments are no joke. He beat Pompey outnumbered and also Vestrinquix( i butchered the name but i suppose you know who i am talking about).
Which is why I voted for Caesar in the poll. :p He was another of the Great Captains of History after all. Those guys tend to be just flat-out awesome. Caesar was in a similar situation to Herakleios at the beginning of the Civil War, but it wasn't a civilization that rested on his shoulders, merely a form of government, and besides, at the beginning of the Civil War Caesar's enemies really didn't have a whole lot to use; they had legions to raise on paper, sure, but Pompey's famous threat to raise all of Italia against the invader never materialized, and to oppose the fresh levies and allied troops of the Optimates, Caesar had the veterans of ten years of war in Gallia. His supposed disadvantage at the start was actually very slim, whereas Herakleios had to recover Anatolia, Egypt, the Levant, and Armenia from an enemy that had been entrenched for several years and who had a far larger and very well trained army led and staffed by veterans of the war. And, he had to fight on another front against the Avars who besieged Constantinople while he was campaigning all over the Sassanid Empire.
In my scale Military victories and eliminating all your local enemies and moving the capital at the time most needed , make him the best.
I think that Constantinus did the most for the Empire, but that Caesar was a better leader. Take that as you will.
Alright ... do you have any sources where the whole war is better documented so i can check it out ? I have my general Roman empire history books but none specific on this matter.
Problem is, the war isn't particularly well documented; in the words of Dupuy, we know what he did, but there aren't many details on how he did it, and in many cases all we can make are educated guesses. This, of course, isn't anything new to any student of the Later Roman Empire anyway. :p I recommend Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Military History (which has a very large section on Herakleios' campaigns), Oman's history of warfare, and the histories of Norwich and Treadgold. Those are what I base it off of anyway. I hear there's a book out solely about Herakleios, but it's awfully expensive so I haven't read it yet.

I might write an article about Herakleios, actually, if one doesn't yet exist, because his is a reign that, like poor Gallienus', is often maligned and not well studied. Or I could do the fall of the Roman Empire, because that's often misunderstood as well...people really haven't kept up with the scholarship of the last half century very well.

Which is why I voted for Caesar in the poll. He was another of the Great Captains of History after all. Those guys tend to be just flat-out awesome. Caesar was in a similar situation to Herakleios at the beginning of the Civil War, but it wasn't a civilization that rested on his shoulders, merely a form of government, and besides, at the beginning of the Civil War Caesar's enemies really didn't have a whole lot to use; they had legions to raise on paper, sure, but Pompey's famous threat to raise all of Italia against the invader never materialized, and to oppose the fresh levies and allied troops of the Optimates, Caesar had the veterans of ten years of war in Gallia. His supposed disadvantage at the start was actually very slim, whereas Herakleios had to recover Anatolia, Egypt, the Levant, and Armenia from an enemy that had been entrenched for several years and who had a far larger and very well trained army led and staffed by veterans of the war. And, he had to fight on another front against the Avars who besieged Constantinople while he was campaigning all over the Sassanid Empire.

Ah ... OK Maybe Caesar's veteran troops played a role but he was quite outnumbered in his encounters against Pompey. Maybe it is the fault of the media but even as you describe his accomplishments it sounds like Heracleios lacks the glamor and fame that persons like Caesar and Constantine are surrounded with. Or even the Macedonean dinasty of Komnenoi . ( Alexios,Manuel,John).

Maybe your article could fix that ?

Ah ... OK Maybe Caesar's veteran troops played a role but he was quite outnumbered in his encounters against Pompey. Maybe it is the fault of the media but even as you describe his accomplishments it sounds like Heracleios lacks the glamor and fame that persons like Caesar and Constantine are surrounded with. Or even the Macedonean dinasty of Komnenoi . ( Alexios,Manuel,John).

Maybe your article could fix that ?
His reign also saw many of the Arab conquests, mostly because a) he was sick with dropsy and couldn't take command of the field army and b) the Patriarch refused to accept his 'monothelite' compromise that would get the monophysites back into the fold, so the (strongly-monophysite) Levant accepted the Muslims without too much resistance. That tends to put a shadow over his later reign. 'Course, it's mostly because of his innovation of the themes that the Empire even survived the next few hundred years at all...

Marcus Aurelius was good, philosophical, humane, etc, but he also persecuted Christians extensively. Besides, Augustus was better. Can't compete with Augustus!

Who gives a hell about christians.

Christians do! :p

Well it was long time ago ;)

Well, that certainly put this discussion into its proper perspective.

the Patriarch refused to accept his 'monothelite' compromise that would get the monophysites back into the fold, so the (strongly-monophysite) Levant accepted the Muslims without too much resistance.

That's not right. It was the patriarch Sergius who came up with Monotheletism. Heraclius simply endorsed the idea. It was the pope, John IV, who rejected it, although that didn't make much difference. Also, the policy was incredibly divisive. Many Chalcedonians rejected it as effectively Monophysitism in a different garb. And I don't think any Monophysites were impressed either. So the policy didn't really have any chance of reconciling the Monophysites, no matter what either emperor or patriarch might have done.

That's not right. It was the patriarch Sergius who came up with Monotheletism. Heraclius simply endorsed the idea.
Yeah, my word choice sucks, and I mixed up Pope and Patriarch again. Sergius was actually incredibly supportive of Herakleios - offering up loads of monies to help fund his new model army, for example.
And I don't think any Monophysites were impressed either. So the policy didn't really have any chance of reconciling the Monophysites, no matter what either emperor or patriarch might have done.
*sigh* There goes another of my little dreams...:p Thanks, I didn't really know what people thought of the compromise, only that it existed.

Compromises in religion almost always succeed only in alienating both sides at the same time - hence Rowan Williams' woes!