Zeke Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 Do you think Vespasian made a good emperor, if so why was he such a good emperor? Or do you think Vespasian was a bad emperor, if so why was he a bad emperor? Zeke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scanderbeg Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 You have to admire the man. He came to power during a dark time in Rome. he faced many challenges to restoring order after the civil wars and fixing the capital after the fire. He did have his political problems. Like the exile and later execution of Helvidius Priscus, his political enemy. Who advocated senatorial independance. According to historians, they seem to agree that he was pretty straight forward with the revenues and did not waste them. He also granted state salaries to teachers and improved social life in Rome through setting up new theaters. He continued expansion in the Empire through Britain and Germany and died peacefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 What makes a good Emporer ? As Emporers go, Vespasian can be deemed as a "good" Emporer, he served in the army, by all accounts he had a good service record, he came to power in turbulent times, he was a man for the people, not a man of the people, reformed outdated laws, ordered re-building, repairs that benefited all He led a frugal lifestyle, choosing to live in ordinary housing, and without any trappings of wealth He ordered the construction of the Flavian Ampitheatre which was built over the site of Neros Summer Palace in a deliberate attempt at erasing Neros memory, he died before completion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scanderbeg Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Whats the big deal with living without excess? I say that makes him all the better of a person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 He seems to have been mostly sane and competent, which given the times was no small feat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 I did not say it WAS a big deal ! I was simply stating a fact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Vespasian is under-rated and under appreciated. Aside from things already mentioned.. the importance of Vespasian is the restabilization of the imperial line. I'm not just talking about dynastic tradition with him and his two sons, but after Vespasian the next 8 emperors came to power without major indident (9 if you include Lucius Verus). Vespasian not only stabilized the principate with supreme authority after the civil wars following Nero's death, but he rebuilt a depleted treasury and reaffirmed the supreme authority of the Roman legion. Despite the fact that he gave the world Domitian (not so much his fault as Titus was preferred, in contrary to Claudius preferring Nero to his own son), Vespasian deserves the honor of being regarded in much the same respect as the '5 good emperors'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted March 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Here here Primus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 I really like the portrait sculptures I've seen of Vespasian too, part of that "for the people" thing. He always looks pretty rugged, like a flea bitten old warrior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Caesar Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 Don't many historians today consider Domitian's bad reputation to be overstated, and more a result of the need the writers of the time to tear him down so as to serve as a contrast to Trajan who they were building up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 Don't many historians today consider Domitian's bad reputation to be overstated, and more a result of the need the writers of the time to tear him down so as to serve as a contrast to Trajan who they were building up? Yes excellent point. Tactitus' support of his father-in-law Agricola (recalled by Domitian at the height of his success in Britain) plays a major role in that. However, he was disliked by the elite and was assassinated, so as always there are elements of truth even in the deepest propoganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mongeaux Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 A Vespasian Joke: Vespasian loved dirty jokes, as any soldier would. He often hired comics to come to dinners and make fun of the courtiers. One day a particularly snide wit had everybody in stitches with his vicious jabs, except Vespasian noticed that he was being left out of the fun. So he asked the comic "You're making jokes about everybody but me. Are you going to makes some jokes at my expense too?" The comic, who was well aware that the Emperor was famous for going about with a perpetually "Strained" look on his face replied: "Sure I will, right after you finish taking that DUMP!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ihaveapaperduein2hours Posted April 10, 2005 Report Share Posted April 10, 2005 I have a paper due in a few hours. Anyone know how to compare Nero to Marcus Aurelius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 They are poles apart, Nero was a possibly psychotic despot, and Marcus was a kind, philosopher emperor, considered to be the last of the "five good emperors". Marcus Aurelius only real failing was leaving his freak son as heir. I guess another similarity is that they probably both composed verse - Aurelius "Meditations" of stoic thought, and Nero endless poetry and music which he forced his court to sit through for days on end, putting to death any senator that happened to nod off. Thats really where the similarity ends though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilcar Barca Posted April 11, 2005 Report Share Posted April 11, 2005 Don't many historians today consider Domitian's bad reputation to be overstated It's hard to say that a man who burnt off other mens penises for amusement (among other alarming methods of torture) while he ate his dinner didn't deserve a bad reputation. But it is true that contemporary historians and writers despised him and never let the world forget how terrible he really was. Juvenal famously referred to him as "A bald Nero", which basicly meant that while Nero was a tyranical madman responsible for countless atrocties and foulplay, the one thing he did have going for him was a decent doo. Juvenal deprives Domitian even of this, indicating that nothing good can be said about him. Vespasian and Titus rocked though, I just don't get how Domitian turned out so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.