Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

The Greatest Caesar


Recommended Posts

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 by frankq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were any other Caesars known as The Great or was that just Constantine?

 

was Constantine born in Yorkshire (kije myself?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Julius Nepos... :blink:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :D

Edited by Tobias
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...