5 Good Emperors

[Dachs]

Eh, might seem arbitary but dickering around on the edge is rather a better thing than being dickered around inside the country. I dunno, the Civil Wars hold far more terror than beating up on Dacia?

Expending blood and lots of treasure to conquer Mesopotamia and immediately lose it due to one's own stupidity and failure to fully think things through isn't usually considered to be a Good Thing either. I dunno, I'm not particularly well versed in history, but something like that could hurt your career.

As for Dacia? Eh. I've never seen the point of the Dacian campaigns except as a salve for Traianus' fragile little ego. At least with civil wars, one usually doesn't have the element of choice; it's hard to see how Constantinus, for instance, could have avoided fighting with Maxentius. Traianus absolutely could have avoided his Dacian wars.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

We're not talking about the times they lived in, we're talking about the decisions they made as leaders. Antoninus Pius deciding not to persecute any random minority, misuse the imperial treasury to all hell, or go to war to make his name flashy in the history scrolls made him a good leader, in contrast to Diocletianus, who was a miserable failure at almost everything he did but was the talk of the town.

Seems to me you don't like wars, so a good leader would have to be one that engaged in none. That's a level of bias I don't subscribe to.

Then having taken care of that is a sign of an unusually good emperor, nay?

None of the emperors firmly succeeded in doing that, even despite their best efforts.

I'm going to go with what LightSpectra said. Diocletianus left an unstable mess in his wake and a system that collapsed pretty soon after. Even Augustus wasn't that flash. Dude had an eye for talent, did rather well out of it in the Civil War and sat back comfortable for the remainder of his rule. Also, I'm not quite sure what made the Principate better than what had gone before it? As to Constantinus his rule ended up in much the same way as Diocletianus in a series of Civil Wars and another system that barely survived his death. (Hell Constantinus wouldn't have come around if Diocletianus' legacy hadn't sucked).

With standards like these, I couldn't imagine anyone would be good enough for you.

What is a Good Time, what makes a Good Time and how do I get one of these Good Times? I'm all for agency, but I'm not sure giving time agency is a Good Idea? I might need to consult a physicist for an opinion on this one.

This is a common tactic you resort to in discussions that you're usually losing, where you just devolve into absurdity. I won't even bother answering.

 

[LightSpectra]

Seems to me you don't like wars, so a good leader would have to be one that engaged in none. That's a level of bias I don't subscribe to.

If you think that it's biased to call somebody who causes unnecessary war a bad leader, then you're probably not sane enough to be posting on this forum.

None of the emperors firmly succeeded in doing that, even despite their best efforts.

... except for the ones who did? Is this a trick question?

 

[Masada]

Eh, fair points Dachs.

With standards like these, I couldn't imagine anyone would be good enough for you.

Having standards is a bad thing . But how's that legacy arguement holding up?

This is a common tactic you resort to in discussions that you're usually losing, where you just devolve into absurdity. I won't even bother answering.

Well, seemingly ascribing agency to years is absurd? And to put it more simply, were the good times despite the Emperors or were the good because of the Emperors or were the good times autonomous creations that stood up on their own and proclaimed that for a century or so: Things Would Be Good?

 

[innonimatu]

Funnily enough, three out of the five Good Emperors are famous because of death, war, and sorrow, although one of them only engaged in a very little of it during his actual reign and spent more time buggering Greeks in Egypt.

Good emperor shows how good it was to be emperor? Seems like he was the smarter one of the lot.

Anyway, why didn't Domitian, just before the 5, get any love? And Augustus was a very competent emperor, who aptly juggled the different factions in Rome to put an end to civil wars for a long time. Hus luck just sucked when it came to choosing heirs (or having them remain alive), thus Tiberius and the following gradual diminuishment of the julio-claudian line. It was Rome's

 

[Masada]

Tiberius seems to have been a pretty able ruler? Cladius certainly was.

 

[Lord Baal]

Tiberius seems to have been a pretty able ruler? Cladius certainly was.

I've heard nothing bad about Tiberius other than that he was unpopular. Living on an island and not even pretending to care about the Senate or public opinion can do that. I must admit, though, that I know very little about him.

 

[innonimatu]

oops, looks like the end of my post was lost. Anyway, "it was Rome's best shot at creating a tradition of dynastic succession." It didn't have to be one from father to son, but at least one where the adopted son, emperor-to-be, was prepared for the job.

And I agree about Claudius. Tiberius... well, he lacked Augustus' skill at diplomacy with the ruling class in Rome. The problem was that the tradition of succession became one of choosing the nest emperor ad hoc, of which Claudius is the best example: hey, we found this guy hiding behind a curtain, he's a relative of the late emperor, let's put him up for emperor.

OTOH, dynastic succession was tried later, with varying success.

 

[Masada]

I don't think it hurt Tiberius much though? He still left a state in good repair with sound finances.

 

[Lord Baal]

I don't think it hurt Tiberius much though? He still left a state in good repair with sound finances.

Didn't do particularly well in naming his heir though.

 

[Masada]

Eh, little boots wasn't that awful.

 

[Lord Baal]

Eh, little boots wasn't that awful.

Not as awful as is often believed, but he wasn't exactly a good choice, either.

 

[Fife]

My favorite Roman emperor was Septimus Severus although he stayed in power by paying the military. The best Roman emperor was Trajan who extended the boundaries of the empire much further then ever before

 

[LightSpectra]

The best Roman emperor was Trajan who extended the boundaries of the empire much further then ever before

Can you at least read the thread before you post?

 

[Fife]

fine. You want five good emperors. here Trajan, Augustus, Caesar (he technically created the post), Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

fine. You want five good emperors. here Trajan, Augustus, Caesar (he technically created the post), Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.

That's six.

 

[Fife]

well then again Caesar was a dictator not an emperor. But then I'd be clling me self a hippocrite oh well....

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

If you think that it's biased to call somebody who causes unnecessary war a bad leader, then you're probably not sane enough to be posting on this forum.

Unnecessary is in the eye of the beholder.

... except for the ones who did? Is this a trick question?

Dynastic succession was never solved, IMO, in the Roman Empire. There were still frequent dynastic crises in the Byzantine Empire, despite, by then, hundreds of years of monarchy.

 

[Yui108]

Expending blood and lots of treasure to conquer Mesopotamia and immediately lose it due to one's own stupidity and failure to fully think things through isn't usually considered to be a Good Thing either. I dunno, I'm not particularly well versed in history, but something like that could hurt your career.

As for Dacia? Eh. I've never seen the point of the Dacian campaigns except as a salve for Traianus' fragile little ego. At least with civil wars, one usually doesn't have the element of choice; it's hard to see how Constantinus, for instance, could have avoided fighting with Maxentius. Traianus absolutely could have avoided his Dacian wars.

Wasn't Hadrian the one that lost Mesopotamia? And if Trajan had taken to avoid the Dacian wars, what would have become of Dacia?

 

[Fife]

Technically Trajan died on his way home from Mesopotamia. Hadrian couldn't sustain the growth.