Which Was The Best Roman Dynasty?

[Princeps]

Which was the best Roman Dynasty? Whichwas the worst? Which was your favourite or least favourite?

 

I'd say the best, my favourite, was the Antonine dynasty. It had at least two truly great Emperors, Trajan and Hadrian. Trajan was a great General and conquored new territories for the glory of Rome. He left us Trajan's column, and I think he instigated military reforms.

 

Hadrian was one of my favourite Emperors of the entire Roman age. Although his policies were controversial and possibly too severe, he made a good decision in ordering that the Empire be expanded no further. He left Hadrian's wall, which is the nearest Roman monument to where I live. He was not a hypocrite when it came to his sexual practices, and he also lived as the soldiers on campaign lived when he was with them (ate the same food, did not wear jewels or ostentatious clothing). It is a measure of how great he was that the legions accepted a harsher regime under him, and he was able to spend most of his reign touring the provinces without fear of a coup.

 

The Antonines also included Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. I don't know much about either of these two (apart from the Aurelius character in the film "Gladiator"), but they were apparently both capable and enlightened. Together these four Emperors brought 80 years of peace and stability. The only grey mark against this Dynasty was Commodus, whose flaws and vices were numerous.

 

I'm not sure which was the worst. An obvious candidate would be the Julio-Claudian (sp?) Dynasty, due to all the tyrants, but their flair and notoriety saves them.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Princeps

[Lost_Warrior]

See I'm rather fond of the Caesar dynasty (is that the same as Julio-Claudian?)

 

The most obvious reasons are Julius Caesar (who built the foundation for a central govt essentially) and Caesar Augustus ("found Rome bricks and left it marble")

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I would support the Constantinian Dynasty(which can also include the Valentinian Dynasty since they are a continuation of the bloodline through the marriages and offspring.)

Edited December 20, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Honorius]

I thought immediately of the Antonines, but does this topic also cover the Eastern Roman empire? if so i would say the Macedonian dynasty.

[Sextus Roscius]

The Julio-Cluadian Dynasty is highly controlversal in the fact that it had both great (Agustus) and horrible Emperors (Caligula!) and so can be noted as the best, or worst, depending on who you refer to. All in all I'm opose to the Roman Dynasties simply becuase they were almost in a sense heredic, so I like to call it "selective hereditary rule".

[phil25]

The Julio-Cluadian Dynasty is highly controlversal in the fact that it had both great (Agustus) and horrible Emperors (Caligula!) and so can be noted as the best, or worst, depending on who you refer to. All in all I'm opose to the Roman Dynasties simply becuase they were almost in a sense heredic, so I like to call it "selective hereditary rule".

 

Can the Antonines really be called a "dymasty"?

 

I think the principal of adoption of heirs was one of the most sensible and the bravest experiments in the history of the empire (and it is a large black mark against Marcus Aurelius that he broke the system). I also know that historians for convenience think of the Antonines as a dymasty - but to me that is rather notional.

 

I doubt really that, if a blood-line is to be used to determine a dynasty, then the Julio-Claudians must be the front-runners by almost any means. We have more sources on them, Suetonius hasgiven them a treatment that spices up the scandal and sleaze!! We know about them in more detail and seemingly can almost reach their personalities and characters (though that is probably a delusion).

 

What a cast too - Caesar himself (one of the great geniuses of world-history) who was all conquering but ultimately failed; his bloodless, cunning, ruthless but long lived heir Octavian/Augustus (who lived long enogh for his early reputation to be replaced by a more gentle myth, and who was probably one of the most consumate politicians the world has ever known - he changed it!!). Tiberius, one of the great enigmas. Caligula - a madman, or a visionary with a sense of humour and a new idea for how empire should be governed? Claudius - the ultimate survivor. And finally Nero, again a ruler capable of varying interpretations.

 

Hollywood and fiction writers (Graves, Massie and others) have seen the potential in this line - to me it has no rivals.

 

The nearest would be Septimius Severus and his brood - Caracalla (of the brooding bust) and then the strange young successors like Elagabalus and Alexander Severus and their dominant female puppeteers.racy stuff indeed.

 

Just to correct any impression I might have given of dismissing or even not liking the Antonines, nothing could be farther from the truth. They fascinate me. marcus Aurelius and Trajan are among my heroes, and I think that a radical new interpretation of Commodus may emerge one day - though I think he was probably mentally disturbed. (I do not adhere to - though I enjoy the idea of - the theory that he was an illegitimate child fathered by a gladiator. But as the first man in Rome ever born to the purple and to succeed genetic father-to-son, I think his mind may have turned. (Note Titus and Domitian were young men when Vespasian became Emperor).

 

Phil

[Ursus]

Interesting thoughts, Phil25. And welcome to the forum, btw.

[phil25]

Interesting thoughts, Phil25. And welcome to the forum, btw.

 

Thank you, Ursus. From what i have seen so far, it looks promising.

 

Phil

[NeronKaiser]

Best? The Flavians showed promise until Domitian screwed up a wonderful track record. IMO the adoptive line from Nerva through Marcus Aurelius was probably the "best".

 

Favorite? Julio-Claudian --- hands down.

Edited January 4, 2006 by NeronKaiser

[Emperor Goblinus]

Favorite dynasty would have to be the Julio-Claudians. They're just classic.

 

My favoirte emperor in and of himself would be Diocletian, except of his horrible track record when it came to Christians. So I'd have to say that it's a toss up between Augustus or Justinian.

[senatus populusque romae]

I would also considered Antonine dynasty,which indeed gave truly great emperors (nevermind adoption policy, that is doubts that it could be called dynasty at all),after Antonines Roman empire started it's final downfall, and before them there were many ups and downs.

[Neos Dionysos]

I would support the Constantinian Dynasty(which can also include the Valentinian Dynasty since they are a continuation of the bloodline through the marriages and offspring.)

 

I would agree if they are being held together, though I thought they were held in seperate regards.

 

A personal favorite of mine is the Valentinian Dynasty but to be regarded as the best... not sure... one could argue that the Flavians are deserving perhaps.