Optimus Princeps

[Princeps]

Who do you think is the best Roman emperor?
These are probaly the best, exept Galigula

Trajan
Hardian
Augustus
Marcus Aurelius
Gallienus
Aurelian
Diocletian
Constantius I
Valentian I
Constante the Great
Claudius
Galigula

 

[privatehudson]

Augustus, Trajan and Hadrian are the only ones I know much about to be honest, and of those I think I'll settle for Augustus.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Augustus because I liked how he was portrayed in "I, Claudius" by Brian Blessed

Determining the best 'Emperor' is tricky in terms of the strength of the Empire and the problems it suffered do not necessarily rest with the Emperor, nor are necessarily the fault of the Emperor.

I'd chose Augustus as he was able to setup a relatively stable dynasty, brought peace after a bitter civil war and didn't not let the Empire shatter and held off foreign troubles. His successive Emperors were left a state in good health that took a long time to ruin...even Caligula and Nero didn't upset things too much

So for staying in power for ages, establishing the precident of Roman power over such a vast area for so long, giving rise to a dynasty and so a stable succession and not being too wierd he gets my vote.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I chose Claudius. No real reason, he just seems to be a all-round good emperor.

 

[Xen]

well, to any and all, I have to recommend this book; Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire : From the First Century A.D. to the Third

It is a brilliant guid, by an author is singulerlly qualified to make such judgments; essentially, he applied his job of working as a former pentagon analisis (and currentlly, he is a profressor at a university) to the Roman empire, and showed how the strategy fo the empire changed, for better, or worse, and how emperors dealt witht he situation; this book almost reversed my favoritism towards vespasian (I still love him, but he took Rome down a wrong turn, militarilly, absorbing the client states that were a real boon tof rontir defense during the era of the principate of Augustus) and has sky-rocketed my view of Diocletian, whom I now recognize as what have coudl have been the single handed saviour fo the empire; I dislike his tax reform, placeing too much of the burden on lower classes, but other wise he was a very good administrator; it also clenched my views of Constantine beign the beigest curse the empire woudl ever see, and how he destroyed the Roman empire that had been restored by Diocletian.

 

[Plotinus]

Why was Constantine so bad then, Xen?

And why on earth is Constantius in the list? What did he ever do that was so good?

I'd have thought Augustus would be the obvious choice. Theodosius the Great would be a good contender, but he's inexplicably not on the list.

 

[Princeps]

Why was Constantine so bad then, Xen?

And why on earth is Constantius in the list? What did he ever do that was so good?

I'd have thought Augustus would be the obvious choice. Theodosius the Great would be a good contender, but he's inexplicably not on the list.

Theodosius! (da*mit) I forgot him.

About Constantius, well I first wrote the Constantine wrong I had written the Valentinian already until I noticed it, so I decided to just put 'I' behind it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Voting for "best Emperor" is fairly pointless, but the sheer stability of Augustus legacy convinces me to vote for him.

 

[Princeps]

Well I think than Trajan is the best.

He was the most popular emperor ever in the senate, army, and it the people.
He also conquered dacia, and attempted to conquer Mesopotamia.

 

[Sir Og]

I voted Trajan. After all I live in the city of Augusta Trajana.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Augustus

Talk about work aholic.
I remember how he made more money by resmelting the silver coins with a higher ratio of bronze. very crafty

 

[pawpaw]

Vespasian--fixed the empire after the year of 4 emperors--straightened out the army and debt. Laid groundwork for Pax Romana to start 17 years after his death.

 

[Xen]

Why was Constantine so bad then, Xen?

And why on earth is Constantius in the list? What did he ever do that was so good?

well, the best explinatin is found in that book; but, to put it simpley, de destroyed the Roman army, stregth wise, deplomennt wise, pay wise, and morale wise, and put an end to the wildlly successful tetrarchy.

 

[Princeps]

well, the best explinatin is found in that book; but, to put it simpley, de destroyed the Roman army, stregth wise, deplomennt wise, pay wise, and morale wise, and put an end to the wildlly successful tetrarchy.

Constantine was a bad emperor I agree, but the tetrarchy was not successfull!

Constantine ''disbanded'' the Roman army in a sense and created the unrelaible palatine system. And he started the fatal deromanization of the military itself.

But in a sense Constantine saved the western civilization by founding the Constantinople and the byzantine civilization.

He should be called Constantine the bastard!

 

[Xen]

Constantine was a bad emperor I agree, but the tetrarchy was not successfull!

Constantine ''disbanded'' the Roman army in a sense and greated the unrelaible palatine system. And he started the fatal deromanization of the military itself.

But in a sense Constantine saved the western civilization by founding the Constantinople and the byzantine civilization.

He should be called Constantine the bastard!

I disagree; the tetrachy was able to hold off ALL threats to the empire successfully, and was leading th empire to an economic recovery- an dmore importantlly, it stablized the empire; even after the tetrachies collpse, Rome, or Byzantium woudl never face an internal political situation as had occured durign the year of the 4 emperors, or durign the duration fo the third century.

 

[pawpaw]

I disagree; the tetrachy it stablized the empire; even after the tetrachies collpse, Rome, or Byzantium woudl never face an internal political situation as had occured durign the year of the 4 emperors, or durign the duration fo the third century.

Within 1 year there was civil war ( maxentius ) and by 308ad there were 6 augustus at once ( 2 more than the year of 4 emperors ) and economicly the cost of 4 imperial courts was staggering. Constantine may of destroyed the army but he was the logical out come of the tetrachy--winner of the endless civil wars it was sure to produce.

 

[Xen]

Within 1 year there was civil war ( maxentius ) and by 308ad there were 6 augustus at once ( 2 more than the year of 4 emperors ) and economicly the cost of 4 imperial courts was staggering. Constantine may of destroyed the army but he was the logical out come of the tetrachy--winner of the endless civil wars it was sure to produce.

1)give me more information on the "civil war" of Maxentius; if you mean the war between Maxentius and COnstantine, it dosent count

2)6 Augustus was nothign new; thier was a yea ro fthe 6 emperors, even befor that particuler event, but it dosent stop the fac tthat the crisis was no where near as bad as it had been during the third century

3)4 imperial courts was hardley staggering, and if fact, had a benificial effec ton the economy; larger, more impressive imperial courts created more demand for goods, the economic situation demanded that a fiar price be paid on time, and the government was in exactley the position to do that; they money spemt was recycled via taxes and tariffs right back into the imperial coffers, where it coudl be spent all over agian.

4)considering that during the tetrachy, thier were no civil wars, the statment that it was sure to produce them is rather bold, and more over, unfounded; admitted, the system woudl have needed soem more fine tuning, but Diocletian had the right idea; the empire coudl not be ruled by one man alone, and his dividing of the powerbases that each govenor had eliminated all futrure rebellions from govenors; it was junior emperors, or rather, constantine, who was not content with his own lot in life in the scheme of the tetrachy, even though eh woudl have eventuall ybecoem the western emperor anyway, who ruined it.

 

[pawpaw]

1)give me more information on the "civil war" of Maxentius; if you mean the war between Maxentius and COnstantine, it dosent count

2)6 Augustus was nothing new; thier was a year of the 6 emperors, even befor that particuler event, but it dosent stop the fact that the crisis was no where near as bad as it had been during the third century

3)4 imperial courts was hardley staggering, and if fact, had a benificial effec ton the economy; larger, more impressive imperial courts created more demand for goods, the economic situation demanded that a fair price be paid on time, and the government was in exactley the position to do that; they money spent was recycled via taxes and tariffs right back into the imperial coffers, where it coudl be spent all over agian.

4)considering that during the tetrachy, thier were no civil wars, the statment that it was sure to produce them is rather bold, and more over, unfounded; admitted, the system would have needed some more fine tuning, but Diocletian had the right idea; the empire coudl not be ruled by one man alone, and his dividing of the powerbases that each govenor had eliminated all future rebellions from govenors; it was junior emperors, or rather, constantine, who was not content with his own lot in life in the scheme of the tetrachy, even though he woudl have eventually become the western emperor anyway, who ruined it.

1] it wasn't Maxentius vs constantine, it was maxentius vs everyone including galerius the emperor of the west.

2] 6 augustus in 1 year is the point, add in 2 emperors and you had 8 men fighting a civil war through out the empire--how is this an improvement?

3] I beleive diocletians price and wage controls were dropped at his death--they were't working.

4] actually was a civil war during Diocletians reign--carausius commander of the channel fleet seized britania and held it for 7 years ( 286-293ad ) As far as no civil wars what else do you call that when Diocletian stepped down. Galerius and the 3 others were still the tetrachy. It just didn't work out. Constantine's part showed the REAL problem of the empire and the 1 reform Diocletian did not ( could not ) do---the army, that is making the army subortinate to the emperor, 150 years of civil war had made the army feel it ran the empire, not the other way around. Constantine was raised to augustus by the britania legions at his fathers death. even after Diocletian any commander was still a threat to challange the throne. It hadn't happened during Diocletian because he was a strong ruler--but see what happened when the various tetrachy afterward were of more equal status, everyone felt they had just as much right as the next guy.

 

[North King]

I think Trajan, mainly due to his generalship, and the fact that though his conquests were abandoned after his death, they often secured temporary security for the empire.

 

[Cashie]

Ellagabalus.

No,Augustus. Otherwise maybe Diocletian for breathing a bit of life into the old girl; perhaps Trajan for his victories.