So of the choices listed, who woudl be your favorite emperor? (wait for poll of if it dose not show)

Wait; do you want people's favorite emperor, or the one they consider the best? I'm confused.

Edit: Hurrah, my 200th post. 2/3s there.

I was torn between Trajan and Augustus. I wanted Trajan, but accidentally instead voted for Augustus.:(

vespasian, the empire was in a bad way after the year of 4 emperors, he cleaned the mess up and left it ship shape for the 5 "good emperors" to come.

Vespasian, as he managed to get rid of 40 billion Sesterzen state debts, put taxes on public toilets and other things and was STILL loved and respected.

He is also told to have had a good sense of humor and produced lots of memorable sentences.


He had a close tie with Augustus, the first Emperor and a smart and successful one, too.


But how about Nero, Caracalla, Caligula, Xen?

They were madmen, but they were cool Emperors... :) Anyway, the definition of "best" is really problematic.

I think Augustus might have been better, but Vespasian is my favorite because I am fond of him somehow.

But how about Nero, Caracalla, Caligula, Xen?

They were madmen, but they were cool Emperors..

well heck, mite as well add elagabalus too :mischief:

@ everyone: i added in both "favorite", and best, simply because, when it comes to Roman emperors, people tend to have the one they veiw as the "best", as thier favorite

@Longasc- while Nero and Caligula migth be some peoples favorites, they sort of dont belong on the "best list"; Caracalla, I was actually tempted to put on; after all, he certianlyl looks the coolest our of all the emperors, and had the interesitnglly civil, and generous gift, given his other actions as examples, fo bestowing citizenship on eveyr free-male in the empire...

general note; i myself voted for vespasian, he often underrated as an emperor, when franklly, givint th circumstance so fhis low birth, it was an amazing feat that he became emperor; a humble man, well liked by everyone, he started grand works for the populace of Rome, and helped ensure that the imperial policy of expansion was successful, at least in britain, where he made his name; and the historian Suetonius is full of admiration for him, crediting, more or les sbeing the epitome of a Roman champion, fighting 30 full battles (eg, the kind of stuff we saw in the movie Gladiator, since skirmishes would have been common, at least in Britian), the taking of 20 strong holds, and those dont include his conqouring of the isle Vectris (the isle of Wight in modern times)...

it tempts me to try to find out enough baout him to write an article for the forum about him...

Augustus, he's the only one I know a huge deal about :)

What about Constantine?

I chose Vespasian being that he more or less fixed the empire.

I chose Augustus as he laid the groundworks, and decided the strategic reach of the Roman Empire, wrote the laws, dealt with Egypt, dealt with cicil wars, ruled for 60 years and in general invented the very Empire in his long reign spanning half a century.

Marcus Aurelius is my favorite emperor ...

it tempts me to try to find out enough baout him to write an article for the forum about him...

Please do! I'd be interested...

What about Constantine?

COnstantine wa sone of the people who broke the empire, only applyin the same old temporoay fixes that Diocletian had installed, excep tthey no longer worked. WOth no igenuity, and splitting the culture of the empire, he dosent diserve to be on any sch list of good emperors. he was a pretty good general, but a ****ty emperor.

COnstantine wa sone of the people who broke the empire, only applyin the same old temporoay fixes that Diocletian had installed, excep tthey no longer worked. WOth no igenuity, and splitting the culture of the empire, he dosent diserve to be on any sch list of good emperors. he was a pretty good general, but a ****ty emperor.

Garbage Xen. :p Excluding Constantine was a mischevious act by yourself. Everyone with experience on the history forum knows you hate Constantine; but history holds him as the first emperor to be remembered as the "Great". I know you dislike Constantine, but excluding him from the poll is such an obvious act of bias, that it really does take all credibility from your poll.

He's not my favorite Roman emperor, but, along with Augustus, he is undoubtably the greatest in terms of legacy to the world. More buildings survive from the reign of Constantine, than any other Roman Emperor. He essentially created the Graeco-Roman church, which to this day remains by far the world's largest religion. Thanks to Constantine, Rome is still a major world capital....17 centuries later. He essentially guaranteed the survival of the Roman Empire for another 1100 years. He was the first Roman Emperor...really the westerner, to get a full historical biography. He was, as you have admitted, a great general. (Being a great general, hypocritically seems to be your main reason for elevating Vespasian). The unfortunate thing about Constantine as emperor, is that he died before he could annihilate the Sassanids; which is undoubtably what would have happened if he had lived a few years longer.

The reason you hate him, is that he destroyed the classical pagan world. You think this led to centuries of backwardness. But, in reality, it was Constantine's christian civilization that eventually, if temporarily, conquered most of the earth. It was Constantine's civilization that created the first One-World civilization.

He essentially created the Graeco-Roman church, which to this day remains by far the world's largest religion

@Calgacus
well he adopted Christianity as state religion... but that made sense politically... Christianity was strong... any emperor would have done the same, sooner or later... is this a question of the man made history or history made the man?? He adopted the then unified church as state religion, yes... but he didn't event Christianity, he did what was politically expedient..
he didn't destroy the pagan world singlehandledly... the change was a long process...

He essentially guaranteed the survival of the Roman Empire for another 1100 years

yes, in the form of the Byzantine or eastern Empire, which itelf went through upheavals... but managed to survive... but this seems to be some sort of rhetorical claim to his greatness... Justinian also represented an important period in the history of the Byzantine empire... the Western Empire certainly didn't fare as well.... and i don't see how Rome is still a Western capital now just because of him

i think i can understand why the poll has pre-Constantine emperors, if for the fact that he is talking about pre-divided Roman empire.. of course that's open to discussion with regard to Constantine... who i agree should be on the list but again with regard to Constatine i would emphasize the processes which were going on at that time as opposed to claiming that Constantine is responsible for them...

i tend to see periods of history as largely not being determined by individuals...

@Calgacus; For me, the empire died when Diocletian abdicated, anythign else was an extension fo the Roman state; mabey that snot the technical definition, but it smy definition, and that in which I used to create the poll.

Theodora and Justinian are probably a dream-team of emperor and empress, and it really boils down to the question if we talked about a western roman or an eastern roman emperor.

Among the East Romans, I am fond of Justinian and Theodora, they were contemporaries of Belisarius and Narses and I read some novels by Guy Gavriel Kay e.g. about them. Theodora also got a movie, and she is mentioned in Civ3.

But I also want to say that Constantine was without doubt important, too. There is a reason for the city being called Constantinople... :)

Justioanian and Theodora were horrible for the Empire!

A)they overextended the Military forces; if they had stooped at north Africa, and mabey Sicilly, then everyhting would have been fine; taking Italy put far to much tstrian on the resource sof the eastern roman empire, for little gain in italy.

B)they are the direct causes of the ease of Egypt and Palestine falling to the arabs; they mad elaws which were very anti semitic, and essentially, anti- anythign other then imperial religion put into place; thsi lead to a great deal of animostiy between th eeasdtenr romans, and thier levatine subjects, and many veiwd the Arabs as liberators as opposed to conqoureors...

It is true that he did not accomplish everything he wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I

He was also not on the side of his wife in religious questions, but the Codex Justinianus and the rebuilding of the Hagia Sophia and such things are not shabby.

You can also admire his relation to Theodora - she actually ruled when he was ill for some time alone, normally both ruled together, this is basically a perfect example of a modern partnership and emancipation.

Theodora also made an interesting career, from a lowly dancer (not much more than a whore in that time) to the empress of the eastern rome.

Sometimes just sounds too good to be true!!

There was probably no Byzantine Emperor up to Xen's standards, you even despise Constantine... :)

emperor Heraclius in one of the few the do.

He had impressive military success against the Sassanids. He probably only lacked the bells and whistles for historical greatness, like say a partner like Theodora.

But hey, I just googled Wikipedia and this guy invented the title "Basileus"/"Basileos", and he ruled for a long time.

I got to agree with you on this one, he was really successful. Even if he was somehow an unknown nobody. :)

by modern standards, valerian is an unkown nobady as well; I was tlakign baotu the sunject with a good friend of mine, he handt a clue who Valerian was int he first place... just goes to show, sometimes, if not many times, being the best dose not mean your are the most famous...

You cannot beat Augustus 60 years rule founding the very Empire, no one beats nr 1. and 60 years is a long time for such an achiever.

@Calgacus; For me, the empire died when Diocletian abdicated, anythign else was an extension fo the Roman state; mabey that snot the technical definition, but it smy definition, and that in which I used to create the poll.

Funnily enough, I'd actually agree with you. You're not correct (as you know :) ) that the Empire died after Diocletian's abdication. Rather, Constantine initiated so many transformations, that he left what might be called a "new civilization". Constantine, in many ways, has more in common with Constantine XIII/XI (1449-1453) than he has with, say, Nero or Marcus Aurelius.

emperor Heraclius in one of the few the do.

Heraclius is probably the most underatted of all medieval sovereigns. He genuinely, through his own individual achievements, saved the Roman (or Byzantine if you prefer) Empire from destruction. He conquered the Sassanians when it looked like they would conquer him. He did this, mostly by his own strategic and battlefield military genius, by hellenizing the vocabulary of the Empire and by inventing the idea that Rome/Byzantium was a permanent Crusading state (hence his common epithet, the "First Crusader".) Some people may see this as promotion of bigotry, but it made the inhabitants of the Empire interested in the Empire's fate. And unless one is a Medievalist or Byzantinist, it is unlikely to be known that Heraclius inspired a whole genre of heroic literature, unheard of for any meditteranean ruler since Alexander the Great.

But hey, I just googled Wikipedia and this guy invented the title "Basileus"/"Basileos", and he ruled for a long time.
He didn't ivented the title , he adopted it ...
Vasileus = King (ancient greek)

He achieved much more than that ... Some of them are in the above calgacus's post .

He didn't ivented the title , he adopted it ...
Vasileus = King (ancient greek)

He achieved much more than that ... Some of them are in the above calgacus's post .

Ancient Greek is Basileus. Amazingly, the word occurs in Mycenaean Linear B (as QA-SI-RE-U or quasileus) meaning some kind of local official or village chief. When Mycenaean culture broke down in the Dark Ages, it evolved to mean king. The Mycenaean term for king was wanax or WA-NA-KA, whence Homeric anax.

I picked Augustus, purely for his work in constructing the Principate and bring Rome out of civil wars. Vespasian was a very good emporer, especially since he rose from 'humble' origins to restore order & become emporer.

Elagabulus personally would've been my choice for joke emporer - although I do have soft spot for Nero. Probably because he won an Olympic gold medal in the 10-Horse Chariot race when he fell off and didn't finish. If anyone votes for Domitian, I will slap them.

Constantine XIII/XI (1449-1453)
Since when is there any controversy about which Constantine the last one was? I always knew him as XI - were there two more Constantines I've never heard about?
Vasileus = King (ancient greek)
Are you one of those Greeks who maintains that Ancient Greek is the same as modern Greek? :lol:

Ancient Greek is Basileus. Amazingly, the word occurs in Mycenaean Linear B (as QA-SI-RE-U or quasileus) meaning some kind of local official or village chief. When Mycenaean culture broke down in the Dark Ages, it evolved to mean king. The Mycenaean term for king was wanax or WA-NA-KA, whence Homeric anax.
In modern Greek B (beta/vita) is read "V", so they translitterate this letter in V in the Latin/western alphabet.

*Returning on topic*

I voted for Trajan, although there is a hard struggel between him, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. However, I think that the greatest King/Emperor of Italy of all the times is Teodorich. The worst... Justinian!

In modern Greek B (beta/vita) is read "V", so they translitterate this letter in V in the Latin/western alphabet.



Yeah...I know; but Vasileus said "Vasileus = King (ancient greek)", which is not a correct transliteration.

@calgacus; I'm curious, just who did you vote for out of my options anyway? (i didnt catch if you had said earlyer)

@Red Threat- why woudl you list Teodorich(Theodoric?) as the best that the Roman state had seen? A sin my opinion, he was one of the biggest problems!

Since when is there any controversy about which Constantine the last one was? I always knew him as XI - were there two more Constantines I've never heard about?


As far as I understand it, there are a couple of usurpers.

@calgacus; I'm curious, just who did you vote for out of my options anyway? (i didnt catch if you had said earlyer)


No I didn't. As it happens, I haven't voted yet. All those listed, except Nerva and Domitian, were great emperors. Augustus was probably the greatest from the period, while Nero is probably my favorite. But, in general, Constantine, IMO, was the greatest, and Heraclius is my favorite.

So, unless a mod changes the poll to "Pre-Constantinian Emperors", I'll not really be able to vote. If they were to, I'd be inclined to vote for Severus or Diocletian...because no one else is likely to do so.

@Red Threat- why woudl you list Teodorich(Theodoric?) as the best that the Roman state had seen? A sin my opinion, he was one of the biggest problems!
I said Italy not Rome.

During the reign of Teodorich Italy was finally in peace and was the strongest romano-barbaric kingdoms of all. Trades and sciences started a new development. After centuries of parassitary exploitation of other countries, the Italian economy flowered again. Italy, not Greece or Turkey, was REALLY the centre of the Mediterranean. In the Italian society, the Romans controlled the administration in a smaller territory (so in the Vth century the administration was more efficient than in the times of Diocletianus) and the Goths controlled the military organization: they developed the strongest European army of those centuries with the first European heavy Cavalry in a time where the roman military organization was definitively overcome. The Teodorich's diplomacy was the best: the alliance with the Visigoths, the Teodorich's vassals (Lombards, Rugians, Burgundians) and the peace with the Vandals made the kingdom of Ravenna the strongest of the West. I'm sure that, without those damned Belisarius and Justinian, the Middle Ages history would have been completely different, maybe the Italian/Ostrogoth kingdom would have become the New Holy Roman Empire and Italy wouldn't ever seen 1000 years of divisions that made us weak.

This is a suggestion for an alternate history scenario: how would the modern world be if Sarmatians, Bulgars, Sassanids and Arabs had destroyed the Byzantine empire and the Italian/Ostrogoth kingdom had survived building the federation of "Gothia" in western Europe? I'd like to play a similar scenario.

And this is also a suggestion of playing as Teodorich when my Dark Ages scenario will be finally released, I hope the next week. ;)

Hm, we could expand the vote to include the Holy Roman Empire, but I fear it was not quite what the first two attributes suggest. :)

Βασιλεύς τών Ρωμαίων ... You like it better that way ? I hope you have greek fonts . Translitterated : Vasileus ton Romaion , Translated : King of the Romans ... What exactly you misunderstood ?

Υ.Γ. The modern Greek B (beta/vita) is spelled just like the ancient one as all of the other letters...
You spell B mpeta and we spell it vita ...

I voted for Vespasian, because of what he did during his short reign and because of his rise from a low birth to be a great emperor.

I like Vesp and Hadrian, since poor Hadrian had no votes guess who i voted for :)

Hadrian was more or less the reason why Roman ran into economic troubles, and started the 3rd Judean revolt; but I put him exclusivlly so i could bring up those facts ;)

I voted for Augustus.

@naziassbandit: ...it's too easy... he was already at the top :lol: :lol: ;)
try to vote Nerva! this is a real challenge ;)

Rome is great anyway. And their emperors also.

Augustus, he ended the civil wars following Caesar's death and founded the institution of emperor while still maintaining the facade of a Republic.

Well if only Titus was up there...

He may only have ruled for two years, but by the time of his death, he was the most popular Roman emperor that there had ever been, and ever was to be. However we do not know how the rest of his reign would have compared to his first two fruitful years, but we can only guess he would continue the policies he had already enacted and continue to keep a high popularity.