Greatest Roman Figure

[tflex]

Well knee jerk reaction usually makes someone from the republic/early principate as the greatest Roman. But if we were to include the later empire, I'd put forward Diolcetian and Constantine, though I do favor Valentinian and Valens... but Valens has gotten a bad reputation after Adrianople... I've learned a lot recently on him and his brother and thier efforts to help the empire and get it back on its feet.

 

 

I think Valens does not belong with the others after all he permitted the Visigoths to settle in the Danubian provinces inside Roman territory in their hundreds of thousands. When the barbarians rebelled he decided not to wait for his co-emperor who was coming to his aid but instead decided to attack a huge Goth force that destroyed him and his army. Both decisions taken by Valens ended up being disasterous for the empire, it broke Rome's back, the goths were now inside Roman territory flowing with confidence after annihilating a Roman emperor and his army, it was the beginning of the end. For that reason Valens should be seriously considered as one of the worst Roman leaders not the best. His bad reputation is well deserved.

[Neos Dionysos]

Well knee jerk reaction usually makes someone from the republic/early principate as the greatest Roman. But if we were to include the later empire, I'd put forward Diolcetian and Constantine, though I do favor Valentinian and Valens... but Valens has gotten a bad reputation after Adrianople... I've learned a lot recently on him and his brother and thier efforts to help the empire and get it back on its feet.

 

 

I think Valens does not belong with the others after all he permitted the Visigoths to settle in the Danubian provinces inside Roman territory in their hundreds of thousands. When the barbarians rebelled he decided not to wait for his co-emperor who was coming to his aid but instead decided to attack a huge Goth force that destroyed him and his army. Both decisions taken by Valens ended up being disasterous for the empire, it broke Rome's back, the goths were now inside Roman territory flowing with confidence after annihilating a Roman emperor and his army, it was the beginning of the end. For that reason Valens should be seriously considered as one of the worst Roman leaders not the best. His bad reputation is well deserved.

 

Wrong, his success for out do his failures. Recent study has shown that he has gotten a very bad rap. He allowed only the Tervingi Goths to settle not the Greuthungi who Valens had fought against almost a decade before and who had supplied troops to the ursuper Procopius in 365. The crossings were highly watched and guarded but there was a large number but it was managable. Valens WELCOMED them into his land for the main reason of using the men as a prime recruiting ground. In the East he was having terrible times trying to raise men into the service. During his entire reign he was only able to get 4-2 units of men while his brother, (being able to use Franks and Alammeni and other barbarian groups), mustered 16-14 new units. Also recrutiing provincials and citizens was very expense and was costing the empire a great deal of money to simply fill replacements let along new units, barbarians were seen as a cheap and good way out of this and was implemented very heavily by Valentinian in the West. Valens was in no need of manpower in the early 370's and so Valentinian took 1/4 of his army, (roughly 16000), to the West and suddenly Valens within a few years faced problems in Armenia, with Persia and the Isaurians who were always a local problem that needed imperial forces to put down or halt. The fact that these Goths offered military service was something Valens COULD NOT pass up and he was following the example of his brother. Valens decreed that "once the Tervingi had crossed, they should be given food to supply thier present needs and land to cultivate for the following year." And he already began recruiting potential men for service as well. The problems arise when the comes per Thracias Lupicinus and the dux Moesiae Maximus, who were in charge, took complete advantage of the situation to turn a profit. Supplies were hard to get to begin with but because of the sudden influx of people it created a problem and the Roman Commanders held back food and charged exhorberent amounts. Ammianus tells us that the exchange of slaves for dogs to be eaten as meat happened and Zosimus and Eunapius lament over the frenzy of Roman Comannders to the region to get slaves for labor and to acquire personal sex slaves. They were treated very poorly and exploited not by Valens but by the local elite and the following year when there was a famine they suffered even worse. The people on the verge of rebellion had to be escorted under heavy guard near Marcianople and to do this, the Romans had to pull riparian forces from the Danube and leaving it open for the Greuthungi to cross who had been denied entry by Valens the previous year. They then moved in to join their neighnoring tribe to start a revolt. The failure of Lupicinus to stop the beginning of the revolt and his defeat gave them a new feeling of revolt and thus it began. Hardly can you say this was his fault and a terrible mistake. The blame lies with the Romans of the region and not him. This along with his amazing adminitrative abilities helped reinforce and strentghen the Roman econmoy.

 

Now I am not saying he should be the Greatest Roman figure, I am merely saying he is one of my favorites who is looked very poorly on and only recently is being shown for the good, (not great but I think did a job above decent), emperor he was. The same for Gallienus as well, who has a tarnished past but is recently coming to light as a good emperor in his own right though sadly he was killed just when his greatest acheivements were coming about.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Guest Playa']

I personally think Caesar overshines figures such Augustus,Scipio or Constantine just because he was one of the finest general ever,a famous ancient writer and co-founder of the Roman Empire together with Augustus.Caesar's name is synonymous nowadays with 'emperor',thing which proves what an impact he had upon the Roman masses,although he was just a dictator of Rome.

[Pantagathus]

I personally think Caesar overshines figures such Augustus,Scipio or Constantine just because he was one of the finest general ever,a famous ancient writer and co-founder of the Roman Empire together with Augustus.Caesar's name is synonymous nowadays with 'emperor',thing which proves what an impact he had upon the Roman masses,although he was just a dictator of Rome.

 

He might not have had the opportunity to grant his name to an Empire if Scipio hadn't clinched Rome's fledgling superiority over the great and powerful lands to Romes south, west & east...

[tflex]

I personally think Caesar overshines figures such Augustus,Scipio or Constantine just because he was one of the finest general ever,a famous ancient writer and co-founder of the Roman Empire together with Augustus.Caesar's name is synonymous nowadays with 'emperor',thing which proves what an impact he had upon the Roman masses,although he was just a dictator of Rome.

 

He might not have had the opportunity to grant his name to an Empire if Scipio hadn't clinched Rome's fledgling superiority over the great and powerful lands to Romes south, west & east...

 

Thats like saying Washington could not have been the father of the U.S. if the French didn't help them in the revolution against the English.

 

Neos dinosys, that was a very interesting piece about Valens. I'm sure he had good intentions but that doesn't mean he is not responsible for the rebellion that took place. He should have strictly instructed the local governors not to treat the Visgoths like dogs. When he decided to let them inside Roman territory he should have treated them as equals and i think that would have prevented the massive rebellion that took place. Also, I read somewhere that Valens did not want to share the glory of defeating the rebellion with his Co-Emperor Gratian, thats why he decided to go into the battle alone.

Edited January 12, 2006 by tflex

[Pantagathus]

Thats like saying Washington could not have been the father of the U.S. if the French didn't help them in the revolution against the English.

 

More like saying (for example) there wouldn't have been a Theodore Roosevelt to fight in Cuba and become president of the United States if Washington hadn't commanded the army that won during the revolution that gave birth to the United States

Edited January 12, 2006 by Pantagathus

[Neos Dionysos]

Neos dinosys, that was a very interesting piece about Valens. I'm sure he had good intentions but that doesn't mean he is not responsible for the rebellion that took place. He should have strictly instructed the local governors not to treat the Visgoths like dogs. When he decided to let them inside Roman territory he should have treated them as equals and i think that would have prevented the massive rebellion that took place. Also, I read somewhere that Valens did not want to share the glory of defeating the rebellion with his Co-Emperor Gratian, thats why he decided to go into the battle alone.

 

Yes he is responsible for letting them in, but he did give explicit instructions to treat them well, but you need to understand the culture and the social structure of how Romans treated Barbarians. Roman soldiers routinely were encouraged to treat barbarians harshly and in fact previously when other settlements came the chance of extermination was rife in the air. When in 359, Constanius allowed a large number of Limigantes into Rome and as he was giving them an address some, (a small minority), attacked him and because of that the Roman soldiers came down on them like a hurricane and massacred most of them. So often, when soldiers were tasked to re-settle people they could also suddenly be tasked with killing them, men, women and children, as a whole so it was a very tense and scary time for barbarians both coming into the empire and those already established for many years. Around this time a strong sense of anti-non-Romanism was high, it was hard to accept by common people and high ranking ones alike that they had to accept these people into thier borders. Such mentality and hatred and fear of these barbarian people is shown for years to come, and led to catastrophe when Honorius killed Stilicho and drove him loyal men to go to Alaric etc. The fault is with Roman society and culture more so than any individual person. By this time as well the word 'Goth' was synomous for slave and so this added to the problems. The two overall commanders of the re-settlement while really taking to extreme the way they treated the Goths, they were implementing techniques that was common and encouragesd in Roman society on how to deal with barbarians. While this was an effective measure it was not possible and would backfire with so many Goths and not enough troops. As for Valens, he did go into battle not waiting for his nephew but he had already waited a month and a half and learned that Gratian was just finishing up his unnessarcy campaign against the Lentienses and he was told to wait for his arrival. Gratian was not only over embellishing his victory but throwing it in front of his uncle's face and this just added to the tension and made Valens even more angered that his nephew could care less to was happening to him. Previous commanders that were sent to aid Valens did not even commit the forces with them, I cannot remember his name but the general fiegned ill-ness and other excuses why he could not assist valenbs when his college Richnomer(?) went ahead to help Valens. The inital rebellion could be contained but once the additonal Goths were able to cross unopposed because the border Riparian forces had to be pulled away the situation just spun out of control. Also, Valens, because he did not control the prefecture of Illyricum, was denied mobile units and another high ranked structured command. He had only one for his his entire empire and he had two major fronts yet only one military structure. To fix this he set up addiontial ones, but while this was needed the hast in dosing so rose to conflict and problems within the high ranking command and squabbles insued. The chaos that followed and dis-organization was indeed Valens fault, but he had to do something. You are correct that he did not want to share the glory, but this is attributed to Gratian and the way he treated his uncle and his use of his win over the Lentienses. Valens wanted to gain this victory and throw in back at his nephews face and use it to establish seniority over his co-rulers. It is a shame that the emperors could not come to terms for this crisis but it is apparent after reading on the subject that Gratian must share a lot of the blame for what happened. Once battle was gives Valens, as well as his four Magister Militum he had must also share fault. I just don't like how all balem is always thrown on Valens and no one else and the History Channels's episode, "Adrianople" on "Decisicive Battles" doesn't help to set the record straight either, the only way to really learn of the truth is to read and research it for yourself sadly but such is the way when it comes to late empire emperors and topics. and kinda why I love it so much since it gives one the chance to disprove popular accepted belief's of empeors in the late empire. Another great example is Emperor Gallenius who was given a terrible reputation when in fact he was better than we were led to believe, and recent scholarship is finally showing this.

[tflex]

Yes, late emperors have been given a bad rap. The empire was crumbling within, therefore, a lot of good emperors were constantly marred by conflict which ultimately overshadowed there positive achievements and stained their legacy. Everything you mentioned is true, but in order to judge an emperor's legacy you must look at what occured under their reign and the consequences of their actions. These facts cannot be reversed, under Valens reign a pivotal battle was fought and lost under his leadership, and the loss of this battle accelerated Rome's downfall. That is why Valens is considered by historians as one of the worst emperors and I think rightfully so because of the disaster that occured under his leadership.

 

Yes he is responsible for letting them in, but he did give explicit instructions to treat them well, but you need to understand the culture and the social structure of how Romans treated Barbarians. Roman soldiers routinely were encouraged to treat barbarians harshly and in fact previously when other settlements came the chance of extermination was rife in the air.

 

First of all his instructions were obviously not carried out, his orders were simply ignored by the governor and the soldiers which proves he was not in control of the situation because he was a weak leader. A good leader will make his subordinates follow his orders no matter what. Second, if you understand "the culture and social structure of how Romans treated barbarians" then surely emperor Valens who was present at the time must have known this. Based on that he should never have allowed the Goths into Roman territory in the first place. It would have been a lot easier for the emperor and his army to fight the goths when they were outside Roman territory for obvious reasons. But after he let them in he should have done everything in his power to prevent a revolt from occuring. The responsibility always lies at the top.

 

You are correct that he did not want to share the glory, but this is attributed to Gratian and the way he treated his uncle and his use of his win over the Lentienses. Valens wanted to gain this victory and throw in back at his nephews face and use it to establish seniority over his co-rulers. It is a shame that the emperors could not come to terms for this crisis but it is apparent after reading on the subject that Gratian must share a lot of the blame for what happened. Once battle was gives Valens, as well as his four Magister Militum he had must also share fault. I just don't like how all balem is always thrown on Valens and no one else and the History Channels's episode, "Adrianople" on "Decisicive.

 

Lets not forget that Gratian was the emperor in the west and Valens in the east. Gratian is not responsible for the bad decisions taken by his uncle in the east, he had his own problems to deal with. Anyway, even if Valens did not want to wait for his nephew to come to his rescue for the reasons you mentioned, it still does not excuse Valens for engaging around 200,000 thousand revolting barbarians without a real strategy to win. He should have either swallowed his pride and waited for his nephew to arrive or tried to buy some time by apeasing the demands of the goths, that way he could have re-grouped for a future confrontation at his own choosing. I sincerely believe that Valens was just not up for the job, great military leaders such as Scipio or Caesar always shine when it matters the most, they somehow find a way to win the big battles no matter what the odds are. The fact is Valens might have done well for Rome but when it came time to the mother of all battles he failed miserably, he fought courageously but blindly. Being an Emperor Valens had the power and authority to shape Rome's legacy and his own into a successful one but he failed miserably because he was a bad emperor.

Edited January 13, 2006 by tflex

[Neos Dionysos]

Yes, late emperors have been given a bad rap. The empire was crumbling within, therefore, a lot of good emperors were constantly marred by conflict which ultimately overshadowed there positive achievements and stained their legacy. Everything you mentioned is true, but in order to judge an emperor's legacy you must look at what occured under their reign and the consequences of their actions. These facts cannot be reversed, under Valens reign a pivotal battle was fought and lost under his leadership, and the loss of this battle accelerated Rome's downfall. That is why Valens is considered by historians as one of the worst emperors and I think rightfully so because of the disaster that occured under his leadership.

 

I understand that, but I have looked over his entire career hence why I still push that he was a decent emperor, had he did of a heart attack the day before the battle, he would be remembered as one, not as a terrible one. You are simply looking at this battle, nothing else in the 13 years he reigned.

 

First of all his instructions were obviously not carried out, his orders were simply ignored by the governor and the soldiers which proves he was not in control of the situation because he was a weak leader. A good leader will make his subordinates follow his orders no matter what. Second, if you understand "the culture and social structure of how Romans treated barbarians" then surely emperor Valens who was present at the time must have known this. Based on that he should never have allowed the Goths into Roman territory in the first place. It would have been a lot easier for the emperor and his army to fight the goths when they were outside Roman territory for obvious reasons. But after he let them in he should have done everything in his power to prevent a revolt from occuring. The responsibility always lies at the top.

 

No, they allowed them in, a single tribe of them, because he NEEDED them. I addressed in a previous post the need for recruitment and his growing problems with Persia and the Isaurians, he was short of manpower because he brother took 16,ooo men from his empire. The Goths offered support in exchange for land and a new life. Valens agreed and the whole society and culture of how barbarians are treated was a common thing and the measures the governors used was what ALL governors did. It was standard practice to do that, the problems came when they did not have the manpower sufficent to keep them in line, the famine which broke out made it worse and the Romans perhaps took it to extremes. Yes responsibility does lie at the top to an extent, but blame must also be given out to those who do the deed.

 

Lets not forget that Gratian was the emperor in the west and Valens in the east. Gratian is not responsible for the bad decisions taken by his uncle in the east, he had his own problems to deal with. Anyway, even if Valens did not want to wait for his nephew to come to his rescue for the reasons you mentioned, it still does not excuse Valens for engaging around 200,000 thousand revolting barbarians without a real strategy to win. He should have either swallowed his pride and waited for his nephew to arrive or tried to buy some time by apeasing the demands of the goths, that way he could have re-grouped for a future confrontation at his own choosing. I sincerely believe that Valens was just not up for the job, great military leaders such as Scipio or Caesar always shine when it matters the most, they somehow find a way to win the big battles no matter what the odds are. The fact is Valens might have done well for Rome but when it came time to the mother of all battles he failed miserably, he fought courageously but blindly. Being an Emperor Valens had the power and authority to shape Rome's legacy and his own into a successful one but he failed miserably because he was a bad emperor.

 

I know he was, though he should have been junior Augustus not a full one like his uncle, this started the problems between the too and they only continued when Gratian refused to hand over the prefecture of Illyricum to Valens to govern since it's defense would have consequences on Thrace and his lands, not to mention the forces there that he had originally given to his brother that he now needed to deal with crisises but would not hand over. The West was a much easier ground to recruit men from, not the East and so it was pivotal Valens recieve them back though he was given nothing. Valens did not enter battle intending to fight 200,000. That was the total number overall that had collected over the time from the start of the rebellion till that year. Originally around 80,000, (the Tervingi whom were allowed into Rome) were the only ones in, of this group only 15-20000 were fighting men and they had been disarmed. But once things got out of hand, the Goths who had been denied entry by Valens and those he had fought 8 years before crossed the Danube and they totaled about the same. This added to groups of Taifali, Alans and Huns paid to be mercenaries and run-away slaves, another already settled group of goths near Constantinople, (settled years ago), and disgruntled miners and Roman Army deserters you get around 200,000 as a whole group, not fighting capacity. Valens faced a force of some 40-50000, not that huge of a force, since his was around 40,000 hardly a great advantage. The problem lies is that all these groups were acting independent of each other, yes they listend to Fritigern to an extent but there was no central order or structure and that is why you had roving bands all over the place which turned the region into gureilla style skirmishes etc. The intelligence Valens recieved was the enemy force was no more than 15000, his army easily out did thiers, why not attack? The itelligence was probably right too, but by the time Valens commited to battle the roving bands and the cavalry were on thier way back. We know that Fritigern was delaying time by sending negotiations and embassies to valens so he could call out for help to the other bands of Goths and various groups. Valens was not a good military leader, but he knew he had to act already. Besides the rampages they already commited, Fritigern was moving to cut off all supplies to Valens and his army and they had to act to prevent this. The demands of the Goths at the time were terms that Rome in 378 would never have agreed too so it is not surprsing he sent them away, and as I stated before he did wait for Gratian for almost 2 months, the longer he waits the worse he looks to the people of his empire for not dealing with the situation already. Gratian, who would have been there and who sent more advance units had recalled them and stopped his move East to go north and pursue a band of defeated and scattered barbarians over the Rhine. He has been told full well the gravity of the situation in the East but it is almost as if he could careless because it is not his domain. Again, while I say he is not a great Emperor, and he failed at Adrianople, he does not deserve the title of "Terrible Emperor", had he lived and won and then allowed to carry out his invasion on Persia, his previous acheivements would be known and he would be considered one of the last great emperors of the late empire but fate is funny like that. We only remember his one major screwup and don't even consider all the good things he accomplished. Also, I'd argue that while the battle was decievely bad it did not break Rome, because the East continued on for another 1000 years, what really broke Rome's back was the death of the Western Army in 394 when Theodosius eleimated his ursuper rival from the West at the Frigidus River, but no one talks about that, because it was Romans vs Romans.

Edited January 13, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[tflex]

Have you ever considered Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus? Of course the times are different but he held dictator twice and like a true good Roman he went back to farming and a private life once the crisis had been averted.

 

The problem with Cincinnatus was simply that he is a character based largely in legend. The details of the history are simple not available. I am not suggesting that Livy created him out of thin air... certainly not... only that because of the taint of the unknown I am personally forced to find another candidate. However the legend of Cincinnatus certainly qaulifies as 'the Greatest Roman Figure'.

 

Wasn't Marcus Furius Camillus accomplishments also semi-mythical? It is said that his liberation of Rome was nothing but a cover up by Livy in an attempt to hide the enforcement of the embarrassing treaty that was signed between the Romans and the Gauls.

Edited January 13, 2006 by tflex

[Primus Pilus]

Wasn't Marcus Furius Camillus accomplishments also semi-mythical? It is said that his liberation of Rome was nothing but a cover up by Livy in an attempt to hide the enforcement of the embarrassing treaty that was signed between the Romans and the Gauls.

 

Yes, there is the likelihood that the final battle with Brennus after leaving Rome is a bit of propoganda to help alleviate the psychological pain of the city being sacked. However, Camillus did capture the all-important Veii, which was a long standing hold out against Roman domination of the region. When the Gauls acked Rome, it was the presence of Camillus and his army at Veii that helped secure the release of the city. When the Gauls left, it was Camillus that maintained regional order against the Volsci and the Aequi, the Etruscans and other various regional Latin towns. Without Camillus, its quite possible that the little regional superiority that the Romans had gained to that point may have been lost.

[Ursus]

Your average idiot on the street who knows nothing else about Rome has probably still heard about Julius Caesar. Ergo, love him or hate him, he is the towering figure of Roman history. And I'm sure if some remnant of his genius is lingering about the earthly life, he's having a good chuckle to himself at causing so much controversy 2000 years later.

[Neos Dionysos]

Your average idiot on the street who knows nothing else about Rome has probably still heard about Julius Caesar. Ergo, love him or hate him, he is the towering figure of Roman history. And I'm sure if some remnant of his genius is lingering about the earthly life, he's having a good chuckle to himself at causing so much controversy 2000 years later.

 

LoL, it was his plan all along and to make sure he would be remembered he got himself involved with Kleopatra.

[Brett the Hitman Hart]

i always will say that Augustus was the greatest. He may not be to some but he kept Rome together through two civil wars, brought stability to Rome and made the Roman people our at least attempted to make the people of Rome believe they were from mythical roots.

[Tobias]

G'day everyone, i've been away for a while, but now i'm back, and having read this thread, i have a few opinions to offer.

It's very interesting; in the time i've been a member of this site, this argument always pops up in one guise or another every so often. I suppose it is because such a topic is so controversial and bound to attract powerful debate. I would personally say that in the history of such a great power such as Rome, it is impossible to designate ONE person who was the greatest of them all. The longevity and power of Rome ensured that throughout it's history, it would face different threats; militarily those of external invasion and internal resistance, politically the threat of economic instability, discontent and the disruption of the Pax Romana. In such times, many different figures would rise to face these challenges. Rome had the ability to throw up such men in times of danger; i.e. Lucius Junius Brutus at the beginning of the Republic, Fabius, Scipio and others against Hannibal, Gaius Marius against the Cimbri and Teutones, Sulla in the east and later against what he saw as "political instability", Pompey again against Mithridates, Caesar against the Gauls and thus against what he saw as the larger, more looming problem of the Germans, and later against what he saw as the tyranny of the Boni in the name of the Mos Maiorum.

I could go on for ages and ages, naming many many great figures from different times. Many figures in Rome's long history achieved greatness at different times, under different circumstances and against different threats. They had two things in common; they fought for Rome, and they affected Rome in some way. It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to have a single greatest figure in Rome's history. To attempt to do so is bound to cause controversy; as in history their are not just different threats and circumstances, but different viewpoints, as is demonstrated by people such as M Porcius Cato (who have my sincere respect for laying out their views in the face of stalwart opposition), and these different viewpoints see Rome's great figures in different lights.

So i would say that Rome has no single greatest figure; all those who influenced Rome were part of Rome's ongoing parade. These men each had something to give to Rome, and for better or worse, they gave it. But for an Empire which spanned Europe for so many years, faced so many different enemies and were eventually overcome, it is virtually impossible to compare (for example) Aurelian to Julius Caesar or Gaius Marius to Aetius. As i said, each had something to give to Rome, or some influence to exert, and they certainly gave it. The results of these influences resound through the centuries.

 

By the way Cato, as i said, i read your remarks about Caesar, but i've decided to not bite and argue back, otherwise this thread may degenerate into a Caesar argument again

Edited January 15, 2006 by Tobias