Tiberius Cornelius Brutus Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Who do you think was the greatest Caesar? In terms of improving the welfare of the empire, I would argue either Augustus Caesar, Vespasian, or Trajan. But then again, Nero did a great job of pinching the Rome out of their dream of security! Its up to you all! ~ T. Cornelius Brutus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Caesarion. He did less harm than all the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Cornelius Brutus Posted August 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Caesarion. He did less harm than all the rest. Haha yes. touche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Augustus presided over the expansion of the empire, urban renewal and beautification at Rome, and a golden age of literature. I'm going to pick him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotWotius Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 My choice would have to be Aurelian (270-75 AD), the 'restorer of the world'--restitutor orbis. He achieved many great feats in the short space of just five years: he both crushed invaders on the frontiers, and quelled revolts; snatched back the Eastern provinces, usurped so audaciously by Zenobia of Palmyra; and after he defeated the detached Gallic Empire, Europe once again, was placed under the wing of Rome. Additionally, he is remembered for his construction of Rome's Aurelian Wall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 The Romans themselves considered Trajan to be the Optimum Princeps didn't they? They knew him, so were probably better placed than us to judge - especially as we know comparatively little about Trajan domestically and politically. Exceptionally they buried him within the pomerium. Nero's first five years were said to be among the best of any. I'd also advance the claims of Augustus - probably the best politician of the lot Tiberius - yes him!! - who I think has an undeservedly bad reputation. He needs re-examining Marcus Aurelius (though he is probably over-lauded) Diocletian - who tried hard to stop the rot - an almost impossible task but he achieved a good deal of reformation. Just my thoughts, Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hadrian for his atention on the provinces during his long voyages and for his peacefull attitude in foreign policy. Also the renewal of hellenism was important. Many emperors conquered for prestige. He was not afraid to give up exposed areas from the first years. His only mistake was sparking the last major Judeean revolt. Maybe Marguerite Yourcenar influenced me to much :wub: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 Phil25, I agree that Tiberius' era went rather smoothly...ignoring the so called 'Reign of terror' but I think that when it comes to study this era people usually put Tiberius's personality before the fact that he brought much stability to the empire. He might have been rather cruel and depraved in some ways but at least he managed to keep the Empire stable and not create too much damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 Doesn't this discussion rely on what we regard as good rulership? Rome would have emphasised different things to us and lets be honest, we look on the roman period from hindsight. What was important? Was it peace? Prosperity? Military glory? Survival? I think the romans would have as many different opinions as we do. A farmer wants peace and a healthy market for his produce. An artisan wants plenty of money in the hands of his customers. A general wants an excuse to conquer or progress his political career. Senators want power and full coffers. A slave? Enough food and as few duties as possible. So its horses for courses. How about a scoring scheme? I bet that would give some suprising results! What about... +1 point for each year in power +5 points for a peaceful death +5 points for each legion raised +10 points for each province conquered +20 points for being deified -1 point for each public protest -5 points for a coup attempt -5 points for a provincial rebellion -5 points for each battle lost -10 points for being declared an enemy of the state -10 points for having his memory erased Obviously I'm not going to go through every emperor scoring their efforts! But you see my point? Our personal preferences are sometimes interesting but how do we actually judge the worthiness of an emperor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 I listed my general reasons for Augustus. An expanison of the empire followed by peace, prosperity, urban and cultural rejuvenation. And quite simply one of the smoothest politicians ever. On a personal note, I simply like the man. I've often wondered how I would have turned out if I were thrust back in time to the Late Republic. I like Augustus am not a military man and could not conquer Gaul like Caesar. In fact, I'd be quite happy to stay in my tent with food, wine and comely slave girls while my legates did all the work. But perhaps like Augustus I have a certain strategic vision in mind, and an understanding of culture. A systems builder, in other words - the system being the empire and its institutions. Yes, I like Augustus because I like how he thinks. He set the tone of the empire for the next 300 years. Not many people have the long term vision to cast a shadow like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 (edited) I agree with Ursus it has got to be Augustus He worked, fought and talked his way at quite a young age to becoming the FIRST emperor of Rome which in itself was a major achievement, he took control of the most powerful city in the world and continued to rule and improve it considerably up until he died peacefully at the age of seventy seven and a reign of forty one successful years (apart from the Varian disaster which although it was not his fault he never really got over it) He was responsible for the creation of eleven new legions and countless new buildings in Rome and around the empire. There is no other "Ceasar" who has left a legacy like this "I found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble" - Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus Edited September 4, 2006 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankq Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Doesn't this discussion rely on what we regard as good rulership? Rome would have emphasised different things to us and lets be honest, we look on the roman period from hindsight. What was important? Was it peace? Prosperity? Military glory? Survival? I think the romans would have as many different opinions as we do. A farmer wants peace and a healthy market for his produce. An artisan wants plenty of money in the hands of his customers. A general wants an excuse to conquer or progress his political career. Senators want power and full coffers. A slave? Enough food and as few duties as possible. So its horses for courses. How about a scoring scheme? I bet that would give some suprising results! What about... +1 point for each year in power +5 points for a peaceful death +5 points for each legion raised +10 points for each province conquered +20 points for being deified -1 point for each public protest -5 points for a coup attempt -5 points for a provincial rebellion -5 points for each battle lost -10 points for being declared an enemy of the state -10 points for having his memory erased Obviously I'm not going to go through every emperor scoring their efforts! But you see my point? Our personal preferences are sometimes interesting but how do we actually judge the worthiness of an emperor? Caldrail, This is a good idea. It might even merit its own thread. FQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus of Seleucia Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Scoring system bad. Some people that were declared enemy of the state were actually the good guys. Too many flaws with your scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Antoninus Pius is oft over-looked for his contributions. His reign was relatively peaceful (part his doing, part reliant upon circumstances beyond one's control), it was administratively effective and stable, financially sound and provided a continuation of the status quo in Marcus Aurelius (though his selection was thanks to Hadrian, Antoninus Pius did nothing to alter this and groomed MA admirably for the task.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Nerva and Antoninus did completely unobtrusive "safe hands" work, indeed Nerva (although short lived) is a pivotal figure in ensuring stability and continuity ( a capable senator and pro-Flavian), I dont think I can make a choice as to who is "best" , but I urge consideration of these two unspectacular achievers. 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.