Question Of Best/Worst Emperors?

[sonic]

What about Aurelian for the title of best? Or Majorian as one who could have been the best if he had not been assassinated? Or Nerva, the emperor before Trajan who realised what needed to be done to stabilise the Empire?

 

For the worst, Julius Nepos in the 5th century, as he became emperor and made Orestes Patrician, only to be kicked out by Orestes! Or Honorius, who ordered the arrest and execution of Stilicho, only for Stilicho's followers to join Alaric?

 

The problem here is that this is dependent upon which period you prefer, either Early, Middle or Late Imperial, which therefore limits the number of emperors you despise or adore, the rest being merely names. The exceptions, such as Caligula and Nero, have been vilified so much in the past that their reputation is greatly exaggerated, and only recently has work been done to look at their reigns in an objective manner. The whole subject needs a clearly defined framework, but how that could be made to work I am not sure. And no, I am not volunteering to devise a framework!!

Edited June 5, 2007 by sonic

[georgious]

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.

I have to agree about your assesment of the Republic. My readings both ancient and modern have led me to the same conclusion.The Republic was an instrument of aristocratic clans and the Senate their council of clan rulers. Their purpose was to enrich themselves by the spoils of wars of conquest while keeping the lower classes happy with bribes of cheap corn and spectacles of ridiculus barbarity and vulgarity.Sources testify of their loans with extortionate interest and thier use of private armies to terrorise debtors. One must remember Crassus dictum that one could not be considered rich unless he could maintain an army by himself.This warlords were assisted by a priesthood which manipulated the masses through divination and explanation of signs and portents.

Aristocrats and priests were the equivalent of military-industrial complex of modern USA.The bureaucracy of the principate was better than this system.I can not say really.

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.

[georgious]

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.

 

 

Ihave to agree about your assesment of the Republic. My readings both ancient and modern have led me to the same conclusion.The Republic was an instrument of aristocratic clans and the Senate their council of clan rulers. Their purpose wasI to enrich themselves by the spoils of wars of conquest while keeping the lower classes happy with bribes of cheap corn and spectacles of ridiculus barbarity and vulgarity.Sources testify of their loans with extortionate interest and thier use of private armies to terrorise debtors. One must remember Crassus dictum that one could not be considered rich unless he could maintain an army by himself.This warlords were assisted by a priesthood which manipulated the masses through divination and explanation of signs and portents.

Aristocrats and priests were the equivalent of military-industrial complex of modern USA.The bureaucracy of the principate was better than this system.I can not say really.

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.

Ihave to agree about your assesment of the Republic. My readings both ancient and modern have led me to the same conclusion.The Republic was an instrument of aristocratic clans and the Senate their council of clan rulers. Their purpose wasI to enrich themselves by the spoils of wars of conquest while keeping the lower classes happy with bribes of cheap corn and spectacles of ridiculus barbarity and vulgarity.Sources testify of their loans with extortionate interest and thier use of private armies to terrorise debtors. One must remember Crassus dictum that one could not be considered rich unless he could maintain an army by himself.This warlords were assisted by a priesthood which manipulated the masses through divination and explanation of signs and portents.

Aristocrats and priests were the equivalent of military-industrial complex of modern USA.The bureaucracy of the principate was better than this system.I can not say really.