Question Of Best/Worst Emperors?

[Adelais Valerius]

In Everyone's opinion, who was the best/worst emperor? Please to one each. I've always been partial to Augustus, for obvious reasons, but I choose Caligula as the worst, though illness could have resulted in the atrocities he commited.

[caldrail]

In Everyone's opinion, who was the best/worst emperor? Please to one each. I've always been partial to Augustus, for obvious reasons, but I choose Caligula as the worst, though illness could have resulted in the atrocities he commited.

 

Thats probaably an obvious choice but no, he wasn't. Caligula was actually popular with the masses, and despite his reported behaviour, didn't ruin the empire. Be careful, because his 'madness' is more likely the result of a cruel sense of humour and absolutely no self restraint.

 

What about Elagabulus? A 14 year old transvestite who wanted to pursue his orgies and wierd rituals whilst his mum ran affairs of state. Or Commodus, who entered the arena as a gladiator hundreds of times and whose opponents were only allwed wooden swords. Perhaps Didius Julianus, who bought the throne from the praetorians and died three months later begging for his life despised by everyone. What about Caracalla? He murdered his brother in front of his mother and conducted a nasty purge in Alexandria because of some alleged comment. Constantine perhaps? Although called the Great by christians, he remained a pagan until his deathbed, tried to get a relation worshipped as jesus, and told some real whoppers to his soldiers and public. There are other examples of bad emperors that I haven't thought of, but I'm sure with a little reading you'll discover just how many of them were pretty awful people.

[Julius Ratus]

There used to be a few threads floating around that talked about looking for some criteria to use for judging the quality of the Emperors, rather than basing assessments entirely on opinion.

 

Constantine, for example, is looked down upon by modern Neo-Paganists for his conversion but to Christians he is a Saint. Likewise, Diocletian is considered to be just shy of the anti-Christ by the Church for his persecution, but many historians will rank him with the good emperors for his effots to preserve the Empire.

 

Anyway, for my good Emperor I will put Trajan because you can't go too wrong with one of 'The Five Good Emperors'. For a bad Emperor I will put Nero because he seems to have been an all around rotten guy.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

It depends what you mean by best? Best in terms of conquering and expanding the empire or best in stabilizing and making the most of the empire.

For conquering and expanding I'd have to go for Trajan, and for stabilizing I'd go for Antoninus Pius

After all they were two of the so called five good emperors.

[Adelais Valerius]

It depends what you mean by best? Best in terms of conquering and expanding the empire or best in stabilizing and making the most of the empire.

For conquering and expanding I'd have to go for Trajan, and for stabilizing I'd go for Antoninus Pius

After all they were two of the so called five good emperors.

 

Your right Gaius Paulinus Maximus, I don't think made my question clear. I was thinking more of for the stabilization of Rome, not merely conquering and adding more terroritory. I chose Caligula simply because he seemed to be the first one to really abuse his power. He realized no one could stop him, so he didn't restrain himself. I totally agree with the Commodus approach though, and though I've never heard of Elagabulus, now that I looked him up, the seems to be equally awful. I was simply curious of everyone's opinion, and learning more about the emperors(such as Elagabulus, and his Vestal Virgin Wife).

Edited April 9, 2007 by mikeal1917

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

It depends what you mean by best? Best in terms of conquering and expanding the empire or best in stabilizing and making the most of the empire.

For conquering and expanding I'd have to go for Trajan, and for stabilizing I'd go for Antoninus Pius

After all they were two of the so called five good emperors.

 

Your right Gaius Paulinus Maximus, I don't think made my question clear. I was thinking more of for the stabilization of Rome, not merely conquering and adding more terroritory. I chose Caligula simply because he seemed to be the first one to really abuse his power. He realized no one could stop him, so he didn't restrain himself. I totally agree with the Commodus approach though, and though I've never heard of Elagabulus, now that I looked him up, the seems to be equally awful. I was simply curious of everyone's opinion, and learning more about the emperors(such as Elagabulus, and his Vestal Virgin Wife).

When it comes down to learning about the Emperors of Rome you won't find a better site than Here, It gives you the history of every Emperor ever to sit in the hot seat

Edited April 9, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[The Augusta]

Anyway, for my good Emperor I will put Trajan because you can't go too wrong with one of 'The Five Good Emperors'. For a bad Emperor I will put Nero because he seems to have been an all around rotten guy.

 

Although I agree with you, JR, that Nero was a bit of a swine, when I think of a 'bad' emperor I would have to ask how much did that particular emperor destabilise the empire. In the case of Nero, how much was it his mismanagement that caused the crisis of 68/69? As far as the actual personalities of the emperors go, I can't think this is a valid reason for thinking them bad or good. I mean, who's to say what Augustus was like as a person behind closed doors?

 

I would agree also that Gaius (Caligula) should not come into the 'worst emperor' category for precisely this reason - he did not destabilise the empire to any great degree.

 

As for 'good emperors' I think there is a general consensus on such men as Augustus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, etc. for a variety of reasons - the 'bad emperors' are much more interesting when we come to assess their malignant effect on the constitution.

 

Having shifted these goalposts a little - who then do we think were the emperors whose rule directly contributed to the fall of the empire - if any? Or, if not the fall, which emperors placed the constitution in crisis? Clearly Nero was one of them, but the empire recovered. Did Domitian have a lasting negative effect? Commodus? Elagabalus? I find this a fascinating topic that I am only just coming to terms with myself, so I would welcome a lively debate.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Having shifted these goalposts a little - who then do we think were the emperors whose rule directly contributed to the fall of the empire - if any? Or, if not the fall, which emperors placed the constitution in crisis? Clearly Nero was one of them, but the empire recovered. Did Domitian have a lasting negative effect? Commodus? Elagabalus? I find this a fascinating topic that I am only just coming to terms with myself, so I would welcome a lively debate.

I think Domitian is a tricky one, He hated the senate and had no time for it and wasn't afraid to show it and that was one of his biggest mistakes because after his death the senate wasted no time in vilifying the man and his time as emperor, during his reign he was responsible for the execution of at least 11 senators of consular rank and the exile of numerous others, but by contrast the emperor Claudius executed 35 senators and upto 300 equestrians yet he was still defied by the senate.

 

Domitian also had successes. Fires and civil wars had left Rome in a mess. Domitian responded by erecting, restoring, or completing some 50 structures, including the restored Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol and a magnificent palace on the Palatine, a feat not equaled by many other emperors. He also left the treasury of Rome fully loaded, perhaps the best proof of a financially sound administration.

 

So he was far from being the best or the worst emperor and as for contributing to the fall of the empire I think he was just one of the many blips along the way.

Edited April 9, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Primus Pilus]

Or, if not the fall, which emperors placed the constitution in crisis?

 

While I agree that Caligula's negative aspects have been over-exaggerated by history, if we take a look at his rule from a constitutional standpoint it's fairly clear that his rule was an assault on what remained of old sensibilities. The damage to the Republican system had been done long before, and others would have a far more significant impact on Rome's stability, but Caligula should be remembered as the first emperor to completely shun the Republican facade.

 

However, I also think it's fair to say that Claudius made at least a minimal effort to rebuild the Augustan state of affairs. With that in mind, Caligula cannot be entirely blamed for the altering the state of government perception, but I suppose he did set a precedent.

[Nerva]

I think Augustus was the best Emperor because he was able to bring Rome out of a time of Civil War and set things up for the glory days of the Empire that would follow. He was also able to walk the fine line between being a king like figure and staying more down to earth with the rest of the Empire, hence the term "Princeps." He was still one of the citizens of Rome even as ruler. It's really a tough call. There were many great Emperors for different reasons, but given what needed to be accomplished and what he was able to do, I'd have to go with Augustus.

 

The worst Emperor in my opinion was Honorius. He was either unable or unwilling to govern, when the desperate times called for a stong leader. If the Western Empire had a strong leader, they could well have avoided the sacking of Rome, which was a huge morale loss to the Empire as a whole. I can't say enough bad things about Honorius. Valentinian III is a close second. I don't think it's coincidence that these two Emperors basically led to the sacking of Rome twice in the 5th century. They sucked as rulers.

[Northern Neil]

I think Valentinian I was the best emperor. He built forts in Barbarian territory, was the last emperor to fortify the frontiers, promoted religious tolerence (The last Catholic leader to do so for some time), legislated to help the poor, and legislated to punish draft-dodgers by burning alive. Although part barbarian, he was nonetheless a fanatical Roman who died after suffering a stroke, after a fit of rage following a disagreement with a barbarian embassy.

 

My worst is Honorius. He was just a twit.

[Drusus Nero]

I think Tiberius was pretty bad in his later years.

But I wonder how much of his behaviar can be blamed on Sejanus influencing his decisions?.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Drusus Nero

[Virgil61]

The worst? Augustus/Octavian by far. He put the final nails in the Republic's coffin, he buried it in addition to murdering/proscribing hundreds if not thousands of Roman elites. How he's gotten away with it over the centuries in terms of historical memory is beyond me. Stability my rear end.

 

The best? Still too early to tell.

[Publius Cornelius Scipio]

The worst? Augustus/Octavian by far. He put the final nails in the Republic's coffin, he buried it in addition to murdering/proscribing hundreds if not thousands of Roman elites. How he's gotten away with it over the centuries in terms of historical memory is beyond me. Stability my rear end.

 

The best? Still too early to tell.

 

Are you serious??? If you have that much loyalty to the corrupt and fatally flawed republic which had no realistic chance of returning to power at this time then I can maybe understand rating him in the middle of the pack. It is true that Augustus was utterly ruthless in achieving and securing power, but he didn't enjoy cruelty for cruelty's sake. He also didn't enjoy power simply for power's sake (more than many of our modern politicians can say), but actually had goals aimed at the public good that he accomplished once in power. Even if one disregards the immense prosperity and stability during his reign (which is stupid), he cannot possibly rate worse then the emperors who were mad, the one who was a sick transvestite, the one who bought the throne, the ones who lasted only months and were basically military dictators, the one who appointed his horse to the Senate (I don't care if Caligula was really mad or it was a joke, it still ranks among the most embarassing annals of Roman history), the one who began the perscution of Christians... need I go on?

 

And is it really too early to tell who the best emperor was? They lived 2000 years ago. What exactly are you waiting for, one of them to rise from the dead and restore the Roman republic?

[Northern Neil]

I must agree with the last posting on almost * all points. Some time ago I rather warmed to the Republic on account of my somewhat left - wing, Socialist and anti - monarchist views. On reading more however, my idealism evaporated when I read about the apalling extortion and greed associated with the Republican regime. I can only currently conclude that the best way in which to govern a state comprising a cartel of Mafia - style families such as Republican Rome was to run it as a republic. Patronage was dispersed somewhat equally amongst the families who counted at the time, and extortion and racketeering was OK as long as a portion of the profits went to the state. At risk of outraging some of my friends on this forum, that is how I (currently) interpret the activities of the Republic based on what I have read to date, and I see it as no more admirable than the Dominate, in which a monarchy returned to the Roman world. Less so even, when one considers that at least the Principate and Dominate did not greatly deprive others of their independence (Dacia, Britain and the upper Rhine excepted).

 

If Augustus hadn't been around, a 'what if' situation (of which there seem to have been a lot around here recently!) would have been little different, with someone else assuming the title of 'Imperator' because, finally, the mafia - style family politics of the Republic had become history. Therefore, one cannot subscribe to the subjective view that Augustus was the worst emperor, because he ended a regime which some people 'like'. It would have ended anyway, with or without him.

 

Like it or not, the Principate and Dominate were no more or less stable than the Republic, they just presided over a somewhat larger territory. The question is, which emperor (Principate or Dominate) made the best of what some would consider a political system they dont like.

 

*Whether or not the Christian persecutions were a 'bad thing' is a subjective view. One must consider also that Christians prior to the Council of Nicaea were a somewhat different breed to what came afterwards, and now predominates. Also, the persecutions did not occur for the same reasons, or in the same way, that the Church and popular media suggest. Neither were they as widespread as is commonly believed.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Northern Neil