frankq Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 (edited) Scoring system bad. Some people that were declared enemy of the state were actually the good guys. Too many flaws with your scheme. Good point. The rating itself could be reworked with this in mind. So scoring system good. ''Fire'' bad. Edited September 6, 2006 by frankq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Someone work on this scoring system yet? Would be interesting to see the results. I am reading a new book on Caesar these days, almost done. That's right, the big JC. Who among the Caesars can say they were victorious in Hispania, Britannia, Germania, Gaul, Italia, Africa, Aegyptus, Asia Provincia, Pontus and Macedonia? I choose the Divine Julius as the greatest Caesar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Who among the Caesars can say they were victorious in Hispania, Britannia, Germania, Gaul, Italia, Africa, Aegyptus, Asia Provincia, Pontus and Macedonia? Aurelian the Hammer--and he actually defeated enemies of Rome rather than the senate and people of Rome itself. To my mind, it's self-evidently anti-Roman to proclaim the defeat of Romans more splendid than the defeat of lunatic potentates like Zenobia, Queen of the East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Who among the Caesars can say they were victorious in Hispania, Britannia, Germania, Gaul, Italia, Africa, Aegyptus, Asia Provincia, Pontus and Macedonia? Aurelian the Hammer--and he actually defeated enemies of Rome rather than the senate and people of Rome itself. To my mind, it's self-evidently anti-Roman to proclaim the defeat of Romans more splendid than the defeat of lunatic potentates like Zenobia, Queen of the East. They would have it so Cato... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Who among the Caesars can say they were victorious in Hispania, Britannia, Germania, Gaul, Italia, Africa, Aegyptus, Asia Provincia, Pontus and Macedonia? Aurelian the Hammer--and he actually defeated enemies of Rome rather than the senate and people of Rome itself. To my mind, it's self-evidently anti-Roman to proclaim the defeat of Romans more splendid than the defeat of lunatic potentates like Zenobia, Queen of the East. Wasn't Aurelian known as 'hand on hilt' (manu ad ferrum) Can't say i've heard of the Hammer before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Wasn't Aurelian known as 'hand on hilt' (manu ad ferrum)Can't say i've heard of the Hammer before It's a brand new appellation--haven't you heard it's the new thing? Actually, you're right--the Hammer was my bad memory for manu ad ferrum. I knew it was something cool... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted September 16, 2006 Report Share Posted September 16, 2006 Scoring system bad. Some people that were declared enemy of the state were actually the good guys. Too many flaws with your scheme. Good point. The rating itself could be reworked with this in mind. So scoring system good. ''Fire'' bad. My scoring system was to prove how pointless it was. An emperor might be considered a 'good' emperor because he kept the peace and people prosperous, but did he do that by cruel means? Our view is coloured by entertainment and historical bias. Face it - you can't control an empire the size of SPQR by word of mouth unless you're willing to crack heads. Take Tiberius. Now you can split his reign into three periods. The first when he ruled directly, the second when he let Sejanus run things, the third his permanent retirement holiday in Capri. He was loathed by many romans. Yet his reign was peaceful wasn't it? Wasn't he a successful general? Granted the Sejanus debacle wouldn't have endeared him to senior romans and the fact he disliked public games wouldn't have endeared him to the bored public, but why was the guy so unpopular? Because he didn't lead. He avoided making controversial decisions and shunned public appearances. He was too remote. So although his reign had many good points he was hardly a desirable ruler from the roman view. Yet no-one (sejanus apart) attempted a coup. Macro is supposed to have bumped him off but he only did that as a favour to Caligula. Tiberius was a feeble old man at the time and no-one else seemed bothered whether he lived or died. That brings me back to my original point. How do we judge? Its all opinion really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted September 16, 2006 Report Share Posted September 16, 2006 Were any other Caesars known as The Great or was that just Constantine? was Constantine born in Yorkshire (kije myself?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted September 16, 2006 Report Share Posted September 16, 2006 Were any other Caesars known as The Great or was that just Constantine? was Constantine born in Yorkshire (kije myself?). Just Theodosius. Constantine was born in Naissus, Moesia Superior. (modern Nish, Serbia) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted September 16, 2006 Report Share Posted September 16, 2006 Did Constantine live up to the title of 'the Great'? Alfred the Great was only given the honorific centuries after his death. Was Constantine known as GREAT to his contemporaries or was it a later addition. I seem to recall he had a connection to York. Was he made Emperor whilst in York?? Whats the link? If any... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted September 16, 2006 Report Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) I seem to recall he had a connection to York. Was he made Emperor whilst in York?? Whats the link? If any... Yes it's true, Constantine was proclaimed emperor in Eboracum (York). His father Constantius fell sick in July 306 and the troops loyal to his memory immediatley proclaimed Constantine an Augustus Edited September 16, 2006 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzhannah Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 marcus aurelius for all the reasons tribunus says and more, surely 'the greates' in a humble opinion of course. suz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 Julius Nepos... Well he didn't have much time to cause any damage to the Empire, seeing as it was on it's last legs when he came to power. I think the Empire was at it's high point during the reign of Antoninus Pius, so I'd have to go with him, although he isn't my personal favourite emperor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divi Filius Posted October 23, 2006 Report Share Posted October 23, 2006 Yet his reign was peaceful wasn't it? Tiberius had his work made out for him quite well. Its hard to really judge the man based on the fact that he did not deteriorate the state but rather kept it the way it was. If you are to say Tiberius was great, then how godly would Augustus become? We often make is to judge the good emperors based on those who could keep the status quo and those who deteriorate it are the bad ones. This is fine, there is no problem with judging a man good because he can keep the times good. I do however personally find a problem when we group those who could keep that status, with those who make the best out of the status of empire that they are given. To tell you the truth, I cannot find an emperor who was trully the best.... Except Augustus... one who is all to common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted October 23, 2006 Report Share Posted October 23, 2006 (edited) It's very tempting to spruik Julius Caesar as the Greatest Caesar, but rather than possibly cause another debate, i'll agree Augustus. A marvellous visionary, master politician and generally one of the greatest assets the Roman Empire ever had, yet a possessor of enough tact to not call himself Imperator, but rather to call himself the Princeps. Actually, i am also huge fan of Vespasian...as Ursus said, i just like the guy Edited October 23, 2006 by Tobias 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.