Scipio.

Scipio Africanus, Augustus, and Horatius Cocles (if he existed) are my top picks. And Aurelian does deserve mention for holding the empire together.

Funny, that was at the top of my list because it's so readable. Thank you; I'll $$ it ASAP.

As the title says ... Which is best? I was tempted to buy Moses Hadas' version because it's available for Kindle, but one reviewer on Amazon said the translation does Tacitus an injustice? What do you all recommend?

[bump] This is tenuously related ... What does everyone think of Germanicus' ambitions around the time he died in Syria? It's been hypothesized that Piso was killed to cover up Tiberius' involvement. Piso moved quickly to retake Syria, and, everything looking all suspicious, Tiberius had no choice but to press charges. Then Piso committed suicide or was murdered, perhaps to erase Tiberius as a suspect for the assassination of Germanicus. But why would Tiberius want Germanicus gone?

Got this for Christmas, almost choked to death with glee. Very cool, very imaginative. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in daily life in the city of Rome circa AD 300.

May I apologise with suitable grovelling-at-feet to you, Scipio, for my less than helpful post a few weeks ago! The day-to-day troubles of women of a certain age often take us unawares. Thirty years of discussing the Julio-Claudians has tipped me over the edge, I think. I'm usually such a 'nice' gal - as most of our members would tell you - so ignore me and extend to me your forgiveness. But as to your question about Germanicus' death, I am with Maty and others - I really cannot accept that he was murdered, and there are several older threads where you will find useful discussions on the topic. Pax, Amice! Lemme get this straight. You insert a fair, honest, accurate opinion and then feel the need to apologize because it's too mundane/realistic for my conspiracy-theory teenage taste? Don't worry about it Anyway, wow I haven't checked up on this thread forever. Does anyone know of any good primary or secondary writings on AD 15-40 other than Tacitus and Suetonius? I'm aware that Suetonius was racy and gossipy, but that makes him even more interesting to read alongside Tacitus, who as far as I know was more level-headed and (as far as those notorious Roman historians go) pretty unbiased. The consensus about Dando-Collins's Blood of the Caesars seems to be that it is radical and of questionable value. Someone said that Seager's biography of Tiberius is good; any other opinions on this? I'm looking into writing historical fiction about this stuff ... Am I going to need to fill in a lot of gaps with my own theories?

Wait, what do you mean by novelist? I thought Dando-Collins does straight history -- popular/narrative/whatever-they-call-it history. I haven't read the book yet but he labels Seneca as the man behind it all, and he's in it together with Agrippina, possibly an affair, too. The whole thing seems a little too romantic in my opinion, but I don't know much about the period, so ...

Okay . . . this is all very interesting, as I'm starting to look into Tiberius' reign for the first time. Moving away from Sejjie, what about Dando-Collins' theory, suggesting Seneca? Seems to me farfetched, but then I don't know squat about Seneca either. Time to study up *wanders off to shoplift some Tacitus and Seager*

Yes, but speculating is more fun than that answer. On the other hand Sejanus sort of gave himself control of Rome when Tiberius slipped off to Capri. What would have happened at that point if Germanicus was still alive?

Hmm (bump) so could Sejanus possibly have been tied in with his death? I'm not sure how it might've helped him, but he seems to have poked his nose in all kinds of places. Actually scratch that. Sejanus was against Drusus, so he wouldn't have cut Germanicus out because that would've made Drusus the heir -- ah, I mean it did make Drusus the heir. My knowledge of these decades is hazy . . .

Haven't read much of this thread but to the OP: Scipio, as you may have guessed. He broke the back of arguably the greatest threat to the Roman Republic. Honorable mention also goes to Augustus -- cunning bastard, not to mention he got the empire off to a good start! -- and Aurelian, who held the state together during a time of utter chaos, fending off both Gallic and Palmyran separatist factions, as well as dishing out heavy punishment to some Germanians who penetrated Italia.

I mean, I've read many times that Rome pretty much went down hill after the end of the republic. I've seen it many places (but for the life of me couldn't give you a list), including on these forums.

Why exactly was Rome doomed after the Republic fell? Was it a cultural/social sort of thing, or is there something I'm missing?

Isn't saying the Germanic tribes were Rome's worst enemy sort of like saying the Allies were Hitler's worst enemy in World War II? I mean, they weren't just one political entity like the Parthians, Sassanids, or Carthaginians. They were practically everyone in the northern half of Europe! I agree that Rome was Rome's greatest enemy, but aside from that I'd say the Huns. They were the ones who started the fourth- and fifth-century mess

Ah, okay, that's straightforward. Thank you very much. Must have been a pain in the butt when the whole army started caving in around them...