Worst Roman Figure

[Neos Dionysos]

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.

 

As you said we already argued it there... and I stated my responses to your points yet you still bring up the same points even when evidence has been presented against it...

 

I am not saying he did not fail in the end... I am arguing that he should not be one of the worst emperors and that he should not be blamed for Rome's fall... this is all I have been trying to argue.

 

 

Going back and forth about Valens and making excuses for him is reading too much into histroy...

 

So then we're supposed to simply just read in history... "He lost and got killed..." and just say... "Ok... I guess that means he is a real bad one, no further use looking at anything else in history."

 

Forgive me, but that's an assinine comment to make... you CANNOT disregard details of history simply because it refutes or 'clouds' your arguement. Using that logic, we should just read history and see... "Hey, Julian got himself killed in battle... and because of that Rome lost land it never recovered... he most be one of the worst." Instead Julian is regarded as one of the better emperors of the Late Empire and to some as the "Alexander who died at Granicus"...

 

Or perhaps we can just simply say, "Hey, what's the point of reading of Rome's accomplishments, afterall, it fell in the end so that's all we need to know..."

Edited April 25, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[tflex]

So then we're supposed to simply just read in history... "He lost and got killed..." and just say... "Ok... I guess that means he is a real bad one, no further use looking at anything else in history."

 

Forgive me, but that's an assinine comment to make... you CANNOT disregard details of history simply because it refutes or 'clouds' your arguement. Using that logic, we should just read history and see... "Hey, Julian got himself killed in battle... and because of that Rome lost land it never recovered... he most be one of the worst." Instead Julian is regarded as one of the better emperors of the Late Empire and to some as the "Alexander who died at Granicus"...

 

Or perhaps we can just simply say, "Hey, what's the point of reading of Rome's accomplishments, afterall, it fell in the end so that's all we need to know..."

 

Thats not what I meant. All I'm saying is you can make all the excuses but that still does not change the outcome of the Battle of Adrianople and make him a good emperor like you've said; he is a bad emperor. I for one learnt alot of new facts from your informative posts, which I was not aware of before. I just don't think the info your giving clears Valens from being a complete failure. But, I definately think that we should always investigate history and get all the details.

Edited April 25, 2006 by tflex

[Pantagathus]

Revisiting this thread because I have just reminded myself of a slew of despicable Roman figures who I'd like to acknowledge, by calling out by name one who I think personifies them the best: Servius Sulpicius Galba of Lusitanian War infamy...

 

While not the 'worst' Roman figure because of the scope that title must encompass, he and most of the Roman commanders who operated in Spain during the 2nd Century BC, were by and large self serving, inhumane, greedy villans.

 

As summed up nicely by Appian:

 

"Being even more greedy than Lucullus, distributed a little of the plunder to the army and a little to his friends and kept the rest himself, although he was already one of the richest of the Romans.

 

Not even in time of peace, they say, did he abstain from lying and perjury in order to get gain. Although generally hated, and called to account for his rascalities, he escaped punishment by means of his wealth.

[Julian]

The worst Roman? That is a pretty big title for one to have to wear. There were certainly many who were bad. Sejanus, Caracalla, Commodus and Nero number amongst the more popular choices. How influential either one of these or others were in actually leading to the fall of them Empire, well, I think it is too hard for me to say. I believe there were too many other factors involved, including the general success of the human population explosion that grew and grew over the many centuries and forced its way into the Empire, as well as the growing sophistication of other nations or states.

 

When I've read the history of the later Empire and the beginning through to the end of the Byzantine period, I see much foolishness where finance is concerned. Too many enemies, too higher price to pay for peace.....Money wasted on gifts for various lovers currently in the favour of whatever Emperor just happened tom be in charge at the time...All of it led to the fall.

 

So I am left with my own personal choices of characters I have not liked in the descriptions I've read in the histories.

 

Romans I dislike. Sejanus, Commodus, Caracalla, Valens, Theodosius, Gratian, Constantine, Constantius, Sulla, Cato the elder, Justinian, Theodora, Jovian, Leo I..... In fact there are many I dislike. It may be simpler to list those I do like.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Julian

[coolgolfer]

I have to say that for me to list an individual who I believe was the worst roman figure is very hard. After reading many articles about important people who played a role in the Roman republic or empire, I've have decided to list only about 5 people that I feel were terrible.

 

Late Republic: Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Mark Anthony

 

1st Century AD - Nero

 

Second Century AD - Commodus

 

Third Century AD - Theodosius

 

fourth Century AD - Honorious

[Neos Dionysos]

Third Century AD - Theodosius

 

fourth Century AD - Honorious

 

I think you mixed the centuries a little... Theodosius was 4th Century, and Honorius 5th Century.

 

 

 

On a side note which I think may add to the discussion, I have seen that a very influencial policy created by Theodiosius was that of using Barbarians against Barbarians, that any barbarian force is potentially an ally against a future or current enemy and that even a current enemy should be courted in a way to use as a future ally. This policy was imitated by Stilicho, Constantius, Aetius... etc. All of the "true" ruler's of the West. One could argue that this policy was self-destructive but also a saving grace... since this policy allowed Rome to use a lot of barbarian support, (many of whom were former enemies), to stop Attlia. I'm looking more into all of this and I wonder... perhaps this policy was a necessity, and Romans knew they needed it, even though they knew it would slowly lead to the dissolution of the empire.

[Tobias]

Romans I dislike...Justinian.....

 

Just of of curiosity, might i ask what you dislike about Justinian?

[Neos Dionysos]

Romans I dislike...Justinian.....

 

Just of of curiosity, might i ask what you dislike about Justinian?

 

 

Well, some see his grand expiditions West as foolhardy and exhaustive to the treasury and resources of the empire and thier conquest brought little back to offset the cost, besides paying huge amonts of gold and silver to the Persians to make sure they did not attack while the Army was in the west... though... even though he did these things... I count him as an overall good Emperor personally... mainly for his laws and massive building programs in Constantinople...

[Kosmo]

Worse figure: Marcus Aurelius because he proved that, no matter how inteligent, educated and devoted to the others a person is, personal feelings take over reason and damage everyone.

If the perfect emperor-philosopher did it so bad what can we expect from the others.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

My vote is cast for Sulla the Lucky. I think the Republic had a chance of recuperating after Marius, but with Sulla the worst of the Roman politics was shown and the power of dictator reached it's most powerful and most horrendous stages. Sulla laid the groundwork for the big names of the Ciceronian era to do their worse.

[Germanicus]

My vote is cast for Sulla the Lucky. I think the Republic had a chance of recuperating after Marius, but with Sulla the worst of the Roman politics was shown and the power of dictator reached it's most powerful and most horrendous stages. Sulla laid the groundwork for the big names of the Ciceronian era to do their worse

 

You don't think Sullas aims were the recuperation of the republic ? Seems to me all his political reforms had that in mind, the danger came when they were overturned. Another thread perhaps.

[Ursus]

Worse figure: Marcus Aurelius because he proved that, no matter how inteligent, educated and devoted to the others a person is, personal feelings take over reason and damage everyone.

If the perfect emperor-philosopher did it so bad what can we expect from the others.

 

 

Which just goes to show philosophy has nothing on ruthless political acumen.

[sullafelix]

My vote is cast for Sulla the Lucky. I think the Republic had a chance of recuperating after Marius, but with Sulla the worst of the Roman politics was shown and the power of dictator reached it's most powerful and most horrendous stages. Sulla laid the groundwork for the big names of the Ciceronian era to do their worse

 

You don't think Sullas aims were the recuperation of the republic ? Seems to me all his political reforms had that in mind, the danger came when they were overturned. Another thread perhaps.

 

I heartily agree (well I would wouldn't I?) Might I suggest that if you want a really informed opinion on the whole Sulla thing Valerius that you ask the expert we have at the moment. Dr Keaveney literally wrote the book on it...but I would of course welcome a seprate thread discussion about my erstwhile namesake.

[Roman_]

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Mark Anthony

 

....why do u consider Antoni & Pompeii as the worst figures of Rome?

 

As for my self,Caligula I belive turned in to be another Henry-VIII....!

[coolgolfer]

I don't consider both of them the worst. I just fee that Mark Anthony let his weakness for lust, lust of a woman from Eygyt. Queen Cleopatra, who used her beauty and lust to lure a man who could have been ruler of the empire. But Mark Anthony plundered that his chances. Anthony could not control himself. Queen Cleopatra had Mark Anthony wrapped around her finger.

 

Pompei on the other hand was an old man who tried to stop Ceasar from achieving greatness. Pompeii was living in the past. He allowed the Senate to preach and brain wash him into believing that Ceasar was againt the republic and that Ceasar had to be stopped at all cost.

 

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Mark Anthony

 

....why do u consider Antoni & Pompeii as the worst figures of Rome?

 

As for my self,Caligula I belive turned in to be another Henry-VIII....!