Who was the greatest Roman leader?

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[luiz]

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

 

[Civfan333]

Augustus hands down.

 

[Mirc]

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

 

[lovett]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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...

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.

 

[Mirc]

• 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.

 

[alcal]

I wondered how few votes marcus aurelius took

 

[Huayna Capac357]

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

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[scy12]

Also @Dachspmg , Why such a fondness for Heracletos ?

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.)

 

[scy12]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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? But yeah, I agree with you; there wasn't much he could have done about getting sick like he did in his later years.

 

[scy12]

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? 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.

 

[Dachs]

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. 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.

 

[Kranden]

Hail Caesar!

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Ave Caesar!