Worst Roman Figure

[athenian1977]

Emperor Neron .

[Ulpii]

Worst Roman figure......pretty tall order; so many of them are vile. In terms of long term damage, I'm going to opt for Varus, marching that army into the Teutoburg forests lost Rome the German provinces. Had the legions not been lost and Tiberius and Germanicus been forced to put so much effort into stabalisation, ending any prospect of coquest in Germany until Corbulo (who Claudius righly stopped sharpish), Rome might have met the Germanic migrations and invasions from a very much stronger position. Debatable I know but so are all the what ifs of history. In terms of personality I've always had a soft spot for Nero, who was just too nasty to believe - killling mothers and kicking a pregnant wife sets you apart as nasty - but the presence of Trajan's celbrated quinquennium I feel might let him off the hook to some more unmitigatedly bad people.

 

As they say: "power corrupts, absolute power is a lot of fun"

[metforce]

I

[Lex]

Honorius

Hiding in Ravenna, ready to escape at a moments notice without making any effort to save the Empire or at least alieviate the sufferings of the Italians. Even if he might have been a bad leader he could have at least tried. Apparently his greatest passion as Roman Emperor was tending to his beloved tomatoes on his small farm while the rest of Italy was getting raped by the barbarians.

 

He had sufficient troops at his disposal and he had lots of money as well as a companion in the East who he could have begged or paid for reinforcements from. There was a lot Honorius could have done but instead he didn't do a thing and to make things worse he had a very long reign and died of natural causes!

 

Anyone with a shred of patriotism or a bit of determination could surely have turned the tide and Honorius' reign was at the decisive moment when the Western Roman Empire still had options available to recover. After his reign and the damage he caused, it was then too late to recover, the vital moment was lost.

 

Honorius was in my opinion like a 'dead' Emperor, under his reign Italy (essentialy the Western Empire at this point) virtually had no government and no protection, the government was weak and corrupt and still bleading the Italians with heavy taxes while offering them nothing in return.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Lex

[Lex]

So I ask to anyone to please supply me with information as to why Valens, (whether to be regarded as the worst Roman figure or not), was the reason the West was doomed... unless the information I have presented can be disputed and found to be void... then Valens cannot be the one responsible...

 

Well, I'm not saying he was the worst but I think what some are trying to say is that the defeat at Adrianople took the Eastern army generations to recover from. Two-thirds of their army was destroyed in a day due to him being a 'glory seeker' and wanting to take on the Goths alone instead of waiting to meet up with the Western Emperors' reinforcements marching towards him.

 

Also, there was a serious lack of discipline in the Eastern army under his reign since the troops had complained about the weight of their helmets and armour and where given permission not to wear them, apparently also in battle according to Gibbon.

 

So, perhaps if 2/3's of the army weren't wiped-out, they would have been in a stronger position to help the West in the next few years, like when the Goths were ravaging Italy, instead of just being thankful that the barbarians had stopped raping their own territory and left to their neighbours. And therefore not being able to worry to much about the West, since they had their own problems to recover from and grateful for some breathing space.

 

The defeat weakened the army for many years and also weakened the citizens and barbarians perception of the government. The perception of the Roman Empire was also important and Valens defeat revealed that the Empire was vulnerable, shedding some of the constructed images of 'invincibility' and showing the taxpayers that the Government could no longer protect them.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Lex

[Neos Dionysos]

So I ask to anyone to please supply me with information as to why Valens, (whether to be regarded as the worst Roman figure or not), was the reason the West was doomed... unless the information I have presented can be disputed and found to be void... then Valens cannot be the one responsible...

 

Well, I'm not saying he was the worst but I think what some are trying to say is that the defeat at Adrianople took the Eastern army generations to recover from. Two-thirds of their army was destroyed in a day due to him being a 'glory seeker' and wanting to take on the Goths alone instead of waiting to meet up with the Western Emperors' reinforcements marching towards him.

 

Also, there was a serious lack of discipline in the Eastern army under his reign since the troops had complained about the weight of their helmets and armour and where given permission not to wear them, apparently also in battle according to Gibbon.

 

So, perhaps if 2/3's of the army weren't wiped-out, they would have been in a stronger position to help the West in the next few years, like when the Goths were ravaging Italy, instead of just being thankful that the barbarians had stopped raping their own territory and left to their neighbours. And therefore not being able to worry to much about the West, since they had their own problems to recover from and grateful for some breathing space.

 

The defeat weakened the army for many years and also weakened the citizens and barbarians perception of the government. The perception of the Roman Empire was also important and Valens defeat revealed that the Empire was vulnerable, shedding some of the constructed images of 'invincibility' and showing the taxpayers that the Government could no longer protect them.

 

 

1/4 of the Eastern Army in total... 2/3 of the avalible forces since, 1/4 was in the West and sitting actually IN Pannoia and were given orders from Gratian NOT to go to the aid of Valens.

 

Valens waited more than a month for his nephew, who instead of sending forces to assit, wasted additional time to cross the danube and eradicate an already destroyed and repulsed barbarian formation. Only Sebatianius of all the generals around Gratian said Valens would need help, and he was sent with a meager force, infact Amminaus describes the initial reinforcements as the being of such few number and utter low quality they did more harm than good. Gratian took his sweet time going to his uncle's aid, Valens finally had to act because Fritigern had mobilized a large enough force around him to where he was moving to cut off Valens from his supply lines and so battle could not be delayed any longer.

 

Was Valens himself seeking glory? I am sure of it, but if he was so intent on gaining it w/o the assistance of his nephew why did he wait a full month for the engagement when each day, the Goths grew stronger?

 

I will agree that the defeat weakened the overall empire in the eyes of the enemy, there is no disputing that and that before the defeat, Rome would never have allowed such terms of treaties to be made the way they would be following the defeat. It was a turning point, and as I stated the East and West were at each other's throats for just over a decade after Theodosius and Alraic was used by both sides against the other, Stilicho even planning an attack on the East with his superior army along with Alraic because he wanted to take guardianship over both sons as he claimed he was given after Theodosius' death. Following Stilicho's death, (and the death of 3 successive guardians of Arcadius), the West and East did start to work together by this time, and the East sent aid to Honorius at Ravenna though while a meager force it was a sign of a renewed bond b/w the two halves. Until that time though, both were trying to out do the other, one instance being the East got Africa to 'switch sides' and so Rome now was not getting her grain supply, Stilicho had to send a force down to Africa to retake it... This type of activity is what doomed the empire IMO, Valens' actions at Adrianople and her aftermath was the a part of it, but the problems accelerated full force during the years after Theodosious' death...

 

The idea that Rome could no longer protect her people is nothing new, in fact it was an issue in the 3rd Century, hence why you had the Gallic Empire and the Palymaric Empire sprout up... this continued and until Stilicho's death, only Italy was truely safe. I mean... they were so concerned about fighting each other than fighting barbarians... a perfect example, when Constatine III rose to power in Gaul as a rival to fight off barbarians coming over the Rhine because Rome would not send troops, what does Rome and Stilicho do? The general Sarus is sent with a force to defeat and subdue Constantine III rather than the Germans... things like this is what made Rome in the West collaspe... and why the East endured. The Eastern Army, until the time following the demise of the West did almost no noteworthy action and had trouble dealing with simply brigands like the Isaurians, the West had the Army... but the West had other problems the East did not and it is these problems that called for the curtain call on Rome and not Constantinople.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Lex]

Good post Neos Dionysos, but I still hold that Valens defeat at Adrianople contributed to making the current problems of the time worse or at least speeding them up. He was overconfident and didn

[Neos Dionysos]

Good post Neos Dionysos, but I still hold that Valens defeat at Adrianople contributed to making the current problems of the time worse or at least speeding them up. He was overconfident and didn

Edited April 20, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Lex]

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.

 

I agree with you on this but since Valens had delegated the duties to subordinates, he would still ultimately be held accountable in my opinion. I don't believe he could have been completely unaware of the harsh treatment of the Goths. This would indiacate rampant corruption and little control of officials if the emperor was perhpas receiving false reports of the situation, otherwise I think he would be aware of the situation. I know the Romans viewed the Goths as inferior and discriminated against them but their treatment was in this instance quite extreme.

 

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. As you state Fritigern was delaying time by sending negotiations and embassies to Valens, he also used this time so he could call out for help to the other bands of Goths and various groups.

 

This was a massive error and the fact that they didn't know of other enemy forces in the area further shows the poor quality of their intelligence or their overconfidence. They should have been aware that other enemy forces were in the area and the lack of this knowledge would seem to be gross negligence on the part of Valans and his commanders

 

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 and his advisors should have at least considered the possibility that the Goths might revolt and realized that such a large mass of people could easily become uncontrolable. We may have the benefit of hindsight here but they should have at least considered such problems. Personally I don't like idea of barbarians entering the army and I believe it was the landlords who were to blame for the lack of conscripts since they bribed the recruiters and Valens could have ended this if he was determined, even though it would cost more but would be safer in the long-term.

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.

 

If food was scarce then I believe Valens should have not received the Goths and he should have considered the implications of a horde of hungry angry refugees within the Empires borders. Though it is possible that he was given incorrect figures by corrupt commanders who saw the situation as ideal to improving their own wealth, but since it was Valens decision to accept the refugees, he takes the responsibilty and blame in my opinion since he couldn't sufficiently control his subordinates.

 

The blame lies with the Romans of the region and not him.

 

Once again, the Emperor had the power to put an end to this if he wished and I'm sure he was aware of the conditions. The mere wishes of the Emperor was law and he should have considered the obvious dangers of their treatment and made laws to allow better treatment of the Goths.

 

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

 

I agree and that's what I've been doing...but my focus at the moment is on the 'Byzantine' Empire, I just finished "The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople" by Jonathan Phillips which I highly recomend and now I'm reading "The Fall of Constantinople 1453" by Steven Runcimen and I've also recently finished all the volumes of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon so I am making an effort to broaden my knowledge. So at the moment I'm not focusing on the late empire, but I believe that for now my knowledge from "Decline and Fall" is sufficient on this period but I will be reading more on the subject after I finish some books which aren't related to Roman history.

 

This along with his amazing adminitrative abilities helped reinforce and strentghen the Roman econmoy.

 

Though my impression of Valens was that he an illiterate peasant who was known to be cruel and was not regarded as being particularly intelligent. But the matter is one of opinion and I still think that no matter his achievements in other areas, the disaster of Adrianople and the allowance of Goths to enter en masse into Roman territory has overrided his other achievements because of the sheer scale of the disaster.

 

But to be fair to Valens, I think he was genuinely patriotic and a brave figure who did try his best but he was just responsible for some taking some bad decisions which led to the further weakening of the Empire and which led to much suffering of Roman citizens. The fact that he personally led his troops into battle is quite a brave undertaking and that honour can never be taken away from him.

Edited April 21, 2006 by Lex

[Neos Dionysos]

I agree with you on this but since Valens had delegated the duties to subordinates, he would still ultimately be held accountable in my opinion. I don't believe he could have been completely unaware of the harsh treatment of the Goths. This would indiacate rampant corruption and little control of officials if the emperor was perhpas receiving false reports of the situation, otherwise I think he would be aware of the situation. I know the Romans viewed the Goths as inferior and discriminated against them but their treatment was in this instance quite extreme.

 

Upon allowing the Goths to settle, he went East to deal with a very real rising Persian threat as well as to organize the army for an expidition into Persia, thus effectively leaving the Goths in the complete control of officals who took advantage of the situation. Again, while I think Valens as Emperor has some blame in this, to have him shoulder the most of it I think is too much.

 

This was a massive error and the fact that they didn't know of other enemy forces in the area further shows the poor quality of their intelligence or their overconfidence. They should have been aware that other enemy forces were in the area and the lack of this knowledge would seem to be gross negligence on the part of Valans and his commanders

 

Sadly we will never know the full situation. Perhaps it was overconfidence, (something I would not be surprised about if it were any Roman Emperor), perhaps by this time Fritigern had moved into a position to force the Romans to attack and so by this time intelligence would not be accurate at all; meaning he had succeeded realatively in cutting off the Lines of Communication from Adrianople, we won't know so I think we will end up disagreeing on this point.

 

Valens and his advisors should have at least considered the possibility that the Goths might revolt and realized that such a large mass of people could easily become uncontrolable. We may have the benefit of hindsight here but they should have at least considered such problems. Personally I don't like idea of barbarians entering the army and I believe it was the landlords who were to blame for the lack of conscripts since they bribed the recruiters and Valens could have ended this if he was determined, even though it would cost more but would be safer in the long-term.

 

This I think is being a Monday Morning Quarterback... why should they assume they would revolt? You may not like the idea of having Germans in the army, but what choice did they have? By this point in time, it was nothing new to bring in barbarian tribes from abroad and settle them with the sole purpose of gaining military troops, this was a practice started by Augustus and continued for centuries, why change now? Understandilbly I see how raising provincials or citizens into the army would be safer long-term but really how would it, there's a point one hits when people just will not serve. The economy was slowly recovering, (Valens along with Valentinian had inherieted an economy in shambles due to Julian), and so they were in no way going to destroy the fragile stability they brought to it by overpaying on Romans who did not want to serve. Besides, what good are soldiers who, once trained and who do not want to be there simply desert on you? Valens as an example, desperate for soldiers had actually taken men who in older times would be perfect for military service but used Christianity and life in an abbey to escape service, and so had then forcibly enlisted. Sons of veterans were already required to serve and the practice of cutting off a thumb to avoid service no longer applied, they would still be forced to serve. Now... if your recruiting base is mutliating themselves to avoid serving, how dependable are these forces going to be in combat? So now you have a prime oppurtunity to recruit barbarians into your army, not only a fair number of fighting men but you would not need to pay for thier recruitment and many would opt to serve as well. To simply say recruiters are simply bribed doesn't explain the full picture, not every recruiter can be bribed... corruption was rampant in Late Rome, and the Valentinian brothers had done much to stamp out as much of it as they could. A law introduced required that if a town could not produce the men they should have for recruitment, then they had to pay a base fee to compensate.

 

If food was scarce then I believe Valens should have not received the Goths and he should have considered the implications of a horde of hungry angry refugees within the Empires borders. Though it is possible that he was given incorrect figures by corrupt commanders who saw the situation as ideal to improving their own wealth, but since it was Valens decision to accept the refugees, he takes the responsibilty and blame in my opinion since he couldn't sufficiently control his subordinates.

 

I am of the opinon the situation could have worked, even if there was abundant food, it would not stop commanders from taking advantage of the refugees, whom had been disarmed, and so would have been no real major threat, they became a threat when the riparian forces pulled away from the Danube to put down the hungry Goths and allowed armed Goths to enter... thus adding 15-20000 armed men. Food was scarce but not to the point they would starve. I think Valens should be blamed for poor managment in this situation, since his orders were not carried out due to curruption of the officers he charged with the task, but because they were able to carry out this exploitation because one, the large numbers of Goths coming in was too much at one time and so to gather so much food and then settle them on land in a short amount of time is a logistical nightmare that I think even with our own technology would have extreme headaches seeing it done. These then created a black market for food and thus where the corruption began.

 

I agree and that's what I've been doing...but my focus at the moment is on the 'Byzantine' Empire, I just finished "The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople" by Jonathan Phillips which I highly recomend and now I'm reading "The Fall of Constantinople 1453" by Steven Runcimen and I've also recently finished all the volumes of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon so I am making an effort to broaden my knowledge. So at the moment I'm not focusing on the late empire, but I believe that for now my knowledge from "Decline and Fall" is sufficient on this period but I will be reading more on the subject after I finish some books which aren't related to Roman history.

 

Gibbon is good... though I highly recommend some primary ones, Ammianus, Zosimus and Vegitius. And the following men, Noel Lenski, Ramsey MacMullen, J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, and A.H.M Jones. Much better and far more up to date than Gibbon.

 

Though my impression of Valens was that he an illiterate peasant who was known to be cruel and was not regarded as being particularly intelligent. But the matter is one of opinion and I still think that no matter his achievements in other areas, the disaster of Adrianople and the allowance of Goths to enter en masse into Roman territory has overrided his other achievements because of the sheer scale of the disaster.

 

But to be fair to Valens, I think he was genuinely patriotic and a brave figure who did try his best but he was just responsible for some taking some bad decisions which led to the further weakening of the Empire and which led to much suffering of Roman citizens. The fact that he personally led his troops into battle is quite a brave undertaking and that honour can never be taken away from him.

 

He was far from illiterate... someone who was of such background would not have been able to run large estate and excell at it in finance and administration. His father was a man who made himself known in the guard corps as did Valentinian... so they had no noble birth but if you consider that peasent they so be it. Just because he is a peasent should not make him not fit to rule... look at men like Justin, Justinian.

 

I think you would greatly enjoy "Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D" by Noel Lenski, (which I did a review for UNRV so it's here). You learn a lot about Valens and Valentinian's rule and it is thus far the only work on thier reigns... After reading it, while I think Valens ultimately failed, I think he did much good and I think is given too much blame in the end and I see him as a tragic figure. Had he survived and won Adrianople, or died shortly after and it was a success... then I can almost guarentee he would be looked at quite favorbly, but... such is fate and the way of the world. And as you stated he died like a Roman Emperor should... on the field of battle.

[Lex]

I think we've now achieved a balance on our arguments so I'm happy, and I agree with you that Valens does come across as a tragic figure since he died in battle trying his best to defend the Empire.

 

You may not like the idea of having Germans in the army, but what choice did they have? By this point in time, it was nothing new to bring in barbarian tribes from abroad and settle them with the sole purpose of gaining military troops, this was a practice started by Augustus and continued for centuries, why change now?

 

I think the difference now was that barbarians were being enlisted en masse into the army and fighting under the command of their tribal chiefs. If they were to used in the army then they should have been dispersed so as to no longer have any cohesion with their countrymen.

 

I really don't like the barbarians so I'm strongly opposed to them being allowed to settle in Roman territory. The Romans knew the character of the barbarians and what they were capable of and knew they could be treacherous and potential enemies. Letting potential enemies in your territory is never a good idea, so personally I can never approve of Valens decision but I do understand his motives.

 

Understandilbly I see how raising provincials or citizens into the army would be safer long-term but really how would it, there's a point one hits when people just will not serve

 

Letting so many barbarians into the army seems like a short term solution and did not address the cause of the problems so I agree with you on this but I don't recall Julian having such problems amassing an army to invade Persia. His army was comprised of well trained and loyal professionals that easily defeated Persians on the battlefield but were forced to retreat because of betrayel from his commanders (not the troops).

 

 

Valens as an example, desperate for soldiers had actually taken men who in older times would be perfect for military service but used Christianity and life in an abbey to escape service, and so had then forcibly enlisted. Sons of veterans were already required to serve and the practice of cutting off a thumb to avoid service no longer applied, they would still be forced to serve. Now... if your recruiting base is mutliating themselves to avoid serving, how dependable are these forces going to be in combat?

 

I agree with you and this certainly is quite a difficult situation. But what if self-mutilating men were sent to the games or executed or if deserters families were punished? I know these would have been desperate measures but I sure they would have 'persuaded' conscripts to be loyal. It seems the government and citizens were becoming soft which might be due to their religion...but that's just a personal opinion.

 

My point is also that if the Emperor was serious about reforming the army and Romanizing it, then I'm sure he could've achieved it if he ploughed enough resources and energy into such an enterprise.

 

Gibbon is good... though I highly recommend some primary ones, Ammianus, Zosimus and Vegitius. And the following men, Noel Lenski, Ramsey MacMullen, J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, and A.H.M Jones. Much better and far more up to date than Gibbon.

 

I really enjoyed Gibbons' style though and I have read Vegitius' 'De re Militari' but I will keep a look out for those authors, but I've recently ordered the first volume of 'A History of Byzantium' by John Julius Norwich and I must first finish another three books (2 non-Roman) and study for my law exams as well, so it might be a while.

 

 

He was far from illiterate... someone who was of such background would not have been able to run large estate and excell at it in finance and administration. His father was a man who made himself known in the guard corps as did Valentinian... so they had no noble birth but if you consider that peasent they so be it. Just because he is a peasent should not make him not fit to rule... look at men like Justin, Justinian.

 

When I say "peasant" I'm implying that he was crude and not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

Edited April 21, 2006 by Lex

[Neos Dionysos]

I think the difference now was that barbarians were being enlisted en masse into the army and fighting under the command of their tribal chiefs. If they were to used in the army then they should have been dispersed so as to no longer have any cohesion with their countrymen.

 

Only after Adrianople were they truely under thier own chieftans control... meaning they still answered to a Roman commander but afterward... they had that independance if you will.

 

I really don't like the barbarians so I'm strongly opposed to them being allowed to settle in Roman territory. The Romans knew the character of the barbarians and what they were capable of and knew they could be treacherous and potential enemies. Letting potential enemies in your territory is never a good idea...

 

Hahaha, most people would agree but many good ones can for the bad ones. Also, you take what you can get... besides... Romans were just as nasty if not worse than the barbarians, and your worst enemy might be your own realtive.

 

so personally I can never approve of Valens decision but I do understand his motives.

 

Which is the important thing...

 

 

Letting so many barbarians into the army seems like a short term solution and did not address the cause of the problems so I agree with you on this but I don't recall Julian having such problems amassing an army to invade Persia. His army was comprised of well trained and loyal professionals that easily defeated Persians on the battlefield but were forced to retreat because of betrayel from his commanders (not the troops).

 

It was a short term deal, because he was planning for an offensive campaign into Persia to retake the territory lost after Julian's death and Jovian's treaty.

 

Well, yeah Julian did not have issues, but of course he was also before the army as a whole had suffered a serious setback, before the Procopius revolt, and Julian was able to get enlistment because... "Booty would be thiers in a very short time..."

 

I agree with you and this certainly is quite a difficult situation. But what if self-mutilating men were sent to the games or executed or if deserters families were punished? I know these would have been desperate measures but I sure they would have 'persuaded' conscripts to be loyal.

 

Well there had been laws on the books for sometime, I beleive either Diocletian or Constantine was the first to order that if anyone who mutilated themselves in such a way they would be put to death. This was repelled later when they realized it would be better to have at least a person who could perform some duties rather than no man at all, which again shows the desperation of the Roman Emperors.

 

It seems the government and citizens were becoming soft which might be due to their religion...but that's just a personal opinion.

 

I am so inclined to agree and myself being a Roman Catholic, it doesn't surprise me this happened...

 

My point is also that if the Emperor was serious about reforming the army and Romanizing it, then I'm sure he could've achieved it if he ploughed enough resources and energy into such an enterprise.

 

The only comment I have to this is possibly he did not wish to spend these resources. Much had been spent on strengthening the forts along the frontiers and he was trying to 'balance the budget' if you will, and stablize the economy, I do not think he had the luxury of throwing money at the problem. Plus, a lot of Roman resources were lost when all of the Mesopotamia territory was seceeded and given to Persia... so... you are also now working with a lower revenue.

 

I really enjoyed Gibbons' style though and I have read Vegitius' 'De re Militari' but I will keep a look out for those authors, but I've recently ordered the first volume of 'A History of Byzantium' by John Julius Norwich and I must first finish another three books (2 non-Roman) and study for my law exams as well, so it might be a while.

 

Allow me to simply say... Norwich is fantastic and you shall not be disappointed...

 

...I completely understand, finals hitting me about now as well as a few research papers. Reading for enjoyment has taken a very terrible back-seat to readings for my professors.

 

When I say "peasant" I'm implying that he was crude and not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

Thank you for restating your point... and while I will agree he was 'crude', (he was Pannonian afterall and they had a wonderful reputation. ), I think he was an excellent administrative person. Sadly, when one is very good in one way, they must have some failings and military was indeed his.

 

I think we've now achieved a balance on our arguments so I'm happy...

 

Forgive me... but I am slightly confused? Do you mean because we have each put forth arguements that after cross-arguements they are both still standing? Sorry... my brain is not working again... (tomorrow is 'Breakfast Club on campus... )

Edited April 22, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[phil25]

Going Back to the original question, I think my choice would be Marcus Porcius Cato (Caesar's opponent) a backward looking, selfish, self-centred, narrow, pessimistic, negative and impractical fool. the damage he did in his own day and afterwards was incalculable.

 

My second choice would be Sejanus whose concentration of the Praetorian Guard in Rome itself had major implications for the Principiate and the later empire. He must have been a consummate politician, and man manager, but in isolating Tiberius for his own cynical purposes, almost certainly murdering Drusus (Tiberius' son) and in his persecution of the family of Germanicus he distorted events in a way that set the scene for Gaius and Nero. Without Sejanus, it is possible that the princeps might have remained much more the outwardly ordinary citizen that Augustus and the early Tiberius projected, rather than the remoter more "imperial" persona assumed by Gaius, (but not Claudius who had experienced Sejanus's machinations at first hand), Nero, Domitian etc.

 

An honourable mention as "worst" might also be given to the self-styled "Liberators" (especially Brutus and Cassius) who's pious niavety led them to make no plans for what would follow the assassination of Caesar. Eithe foolhardy or not ruthless enough, they created the vacuum filled first by Antonius and then by Octavian (the new Julius Caesar). Too timid to fight, they fled and both Cassius and brutus proved tyrants in the east, blackmailing and extorting funds. neither admirable nor practical men.

 

To put in a word FOR some of the maligned earlier Emperors (I am not very knowledgeable about the later ones) I think Gaius Caligula and Nero can be explained in ways that make them less foolish, insane or bad.

 

As for Commodus, there isn't much that can be said for the poor dupe except that he was probably not very bright. But I do have a soft spot for him.

 

I am also a little suspicious that the bad Emperors always seem to have similar lives and that we have not been bequeathed the truth about men like Commodus and Domitian. Is there artistic licence in their portrayals by men who disliked them? I have no proof - but I think there are worse men to choose if one delves under the surface a little. Hence my choices.

 

Phil

[Lex]

Forgive me... but I am slightly confused? Do you mean because we have each put forth arguements that after cross-arguements they are both still standing?

 

(Here's a summary for anyone who doesn't want to wadethrough our posts)

 

I mean we

Edited April 24, 2006 by Lex

[tflex]

I'm not going to get into the details, I already had this same argument in the "Greatest Roman Figure" thread of all places, it's better suited here.

 

It doesn't matter what Gratian should or shouldn't have done, or by who the Goths were mistreated and all the great things Valens did before the battle of Adrianople. What matters is, Valens was the emperor and he personally led the battle against the goths and lost it and managed to get himself killed in the process. In his capacity as Emperor, he had the power to alter the outcome, but he made one mistake after the other, first by provoking the Goths all the way until he led his troops into disaster. Valens is responsible for all the failures becasue he was emperor at the time.

 

All his good policies prior to the Battle of Adrianople only mean something if he was victorious or somehow avoided such a confrontation, but because he lost it, all his other accomplishments became obsolete. Going back and forth about Valens and making excuses for him is reading too much into histroy, just take the facts and you will find, based on the outcome of the battle, Valens is one of the worst Roman Emperors.

Edited April 25, 2006 by tflex