Best Roman Emperor

[Praxus]

In response I will say that the paltry plebeian achievements, which were far outweighed by patrician achievements, constitute no trend that aids your general argument that the Republic did incorporate large amounts of plebeian opinion. My initial statement was neve meant to be interpreted as rigidly as a mathematical clause (i.e. where one counter-example disproves the entire rule). My statement was a simplification of an overwhleming trend of the Roman republic: the preponderance of wealthy people in power. I believe it is this trend that negates many of the idealistic interpretations of that period.

You have to be more specific. What "idealistic interpretations" in particular are you refering to?

Just because the people in power tended to be wealthy, means nothing.

The Pax Romana was superior to many, if not all the Republican periods for several reasons. For a majority of the time and esepcially from 96-180 AD, the Empire was ruled by eminently skilled men. Gibbon himself, I believe it is in the closing paragraphs of Chapter 3 (Volume I), called the age of the Antonines (which can be equated to the period of 98-180) as the fairest age of mankind. I will check my copy at home, since I have all six volumes, and find the exact quote for you.

I have it as well, but I'm getting it for Christmas, so I can't open it just yet

This is the time of the three great Emperors. I would agree that this period was indeed the Golden Age of the Empire.

I am not saying that a system like Imperial Rome is inherently bad. With a good and just Emperor (like M. Aurelius), it is fine. The problem is when viceful Emperors take power.

The Pax Romana was largely devoid of civil wars, the only large exception being the tumult that followed the death of Nero (The Year of Four Emperors). We all know that in the closing century of Republican rule, the roman realm experienced serious civil wars and contests between ruling generals. It was during the Republic that people like Sulla could march an Army into Rome and massacre political enemies.

The Republic was devoid of Civil Wars for over 200 years (over 400 if you don't include the essentially bloodless "Social Wars" of the 5th and 4th Centuries), so that is an invalid basis from which to make a comparison.

The Pax Romana also saw a growth in buliding, industry, and trade. Almost all of the Empires most famous and enduring bulidings were buildd during this period (aqueducts, roads, bridges, new cities, ampitheatres, etc.) Augustus was probably the greatest builder of Roman history, his famous quote being, "I found Rome a city of brick, and left it a city of marble." Or at least it was something of that order.

The magnificance of these statues is great, I do not disagree. I don't think they are a valid means to judge Rome.

The military achievements of the Roman Peace were also significant, although most of the Roman domain had been conquered under Republican armies. What we see in the Pax though is a greater deal of efficiency and order. Especially when talented people like Augustus or Vespasian were in power, the army was under talented central rule. The Emperors could coordinate goals and move men around like never before.

I still don't get what you mean by "greater deal of efficiency and order", could you perhaps cite some examples?

[Bulgaroctonus]

I'll respond to this post first, and then continue my response to your earlier one.

You have to be more specific. What "idealistic interpretations" in particular are you refering to?

The main idealistic interpretation is that the Republic was a great, democratic, and egalitarian system. I know you don't think that, but some people have. Related to this is the analysis that the decline of Rome was due to a loss of virtue or morality. Of course, the decline of Rome was a very complex event, as Professor Bury will tell us, but I don't think it was a moral decay.

For instance, the founding fathers were very fond of certain individuals. Especially Cato the Younger and Cicero, as well as Brutus and Cassius and all the other conspirators. However, they made a mistake with many of these men. Cato was a fairly upright man it seems. Brutus also may have been idealistic, even Marc Antony defended him. However, Marc Antony also said that all the other conspirators killed the man Caesar, not the supposed tyrant, proving that many of the conspirators killed for base reasons.

I can cite more idealistic interpretations if you want.

Just because the people in power tended to be wealthy, means nothing.

It means a great deal. It cancels out notions that the Republic was a pure and upright system. The patrician class made decisions that benefitted themselves primarily, often neglecting the lower classes. That is not to say that the lower classes were completely ignored, because they did make advances.

For instance, what if the Republic had been ruled by communes of farmers and tradespeople? The wealth of the ruling class, which goes hand in hand with their social level, has a large impact on the characteristics of the poltical system in question.

I have it as well, but I'm getting it for Christmas, so I can't open it just yet

May Gibbon bring you many joys. However, remember that much of the later half (the Byzantine part) is biased and somewhat inaccurate.

I am not saying that a system like Imperial Rome is inherently bad. With a good and just Emperor (like M. Aurelius), it is fine. The problem is when viceful Emperors take power.

Yes, poor Emperors did tremendous damge to the Empire. In my opinion, the Western Empire may have lasted a great deal longer if it had better Emperors in the last decades.

However, it seems like Rome prospered more under a good Emperor than it did under a good consul. Essentially, an imperial system can bring greater benefits or greater failures than a democratic system.

The Republic was devoid of Civil Wars for over 200 years (over 400 if you don't include the essentially bloodless "Social Wars" of the 5th and 4th Centuries), so that is an invalid basis from which to make a comparison.

Yes, the Republic did bring peace for a long while. However, in its last years we saw an increasing rate and severity of civil wars. Some of the prominent examples are the Marius-Sulla feud, the Clodius mob rule in the 50s, Caesar vs. Pompey, Second Triumvirate vs. Brutus and Cassius, and finally Octavian vs. Antony. Also things like Spartacus' slave revolt didn't help things.

Although the Republic had been peaceful for many years, it was simply incapable of curbing the power of the generals and mighty politicians. Augustus provided an essential period of peace. Had he not taken the reigns, the Republic may have squabbled for many more years.

The magnificance of these statues is great, I do not disagree. I don't think they are a valid means to judge Rome.

No, I'm not talking about statues. Augustus completed all kinds of eminently functional bulidings and many other achievements. He created Rome's first permanent army and navy and stationed the legions along the Empire's borders, where they could not meddle in politics. A special unit, the Praetorian Guard, garrisoned Rome and protected the Emperor's person. He also reformed Rome's finance and tax systems.

He built the Senate a new home, the Curia, and built temples to Apollo and the Divine Julius. He also built a shrine near the Circus Maximus. The Capitoline Temple and the Theater of Pompey are recorded as projects of Augustus, whose name was deliberately uncredited. He founded a ministry of transport that built an extensive network of roads — enabling improved communication, trade, and mail. Augustus also founded the world's first fire brigade, and created a regular police force for Rome.

He and many other Emperors built most of the great Roman buildings we know today. In addition, the Emperors carried out numerous projects in the provinces, like highway systems, aqueducts, defense walls (Hadrian), etc.

So, it wasn't all statues. Far from it, the Romans were practical people dedicated to functional buildings.

I still don't get what you mean by "greater deal of efficiency and order", could you perhaps cite some examples?

Well, take a look at some of the achievements I listed above. These were executed with a speed and coordination unseen in the Republican period. Also, the last years of the Republic were essentially lawless, and the good Emperors brought peace and stability to the system.

I can cite Augustus' legal and tax reforms, plus many others, as things that increased efficiency and order.

Also, the main collections of Roman law were done far after the Republic, by the Emperors Theodosius II (Codex Theodosianus) and Justinian I (Corpus Juris Civilis).

[Bulgaroctonus]

People tend to act in their interest, but they don't always act in their own interest. For example, Muslim Americans giving money to terrorist organizations whether they wish to believe it or not, is not in their interest. It doesn't matter what they think in this respect, what matters is the truth.

People always do things that have a utility to them, people always take action that they think will benefit them in some way. Yes, sometime people do make mistakes in action because they did not see the grand scheme of things.

The Byzantine Empire is not Roman! Calling them Roman is like calling us British. Furthermore , Longevity is not an accurate measurement of a society.

First, the Byzantines called themselves Romans (never Byzantines) until the very fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. Mehmet II claimed that he was the new Roman Emperor when his janissaries took the city in 1453. Furthermore, all of the Byzantine Emperors called themselves Roman Emperors. All of the Byzantines' enemies called them Romans.

The Byzantine Empire was a legitimate and direct continuation of the old Roman Empire. One can trace the last 'Byzantine' Emperor, Constantine XI, directly back to Augustus. There is an unbroken line of rulership from 27 BC to 1453 AD.

Furthermore, the Eastern Empire maintained a heavily cosmopolitan atmosphere until the reign of Heraclius, at which point many of the Eastern provinces were lost to Islam. The Eastern Empire also maintained control of Rome for a long while. Emperor Constans II (641-668) was the last Emperor to visit Rome, that happened in 663.

Longevity definitely means something in terms of the Eastern Empire, since it had to fight for its life against a sea of enemies for an entire millenium. The long survival of the Empire was not due to idleness and easy existence. No, the Eastern armies were more professional, better trained, better armed, and better led than any other army in Europe or the Middle East up until the disaster of Manzikert in 1071.

The Eastern Emperors were fighting a perpetual two-front war, trying to stave off the Bulgars and the Arabs or Persians, and sometimes these enemies allied. Looking at their military dilemma, the Eastern Empire did very well. Not to mention that Western Europe did almost nothing to help out their Christian brethren, or show any allegiance to the true Roman Emperors, as opposed to the Holy Roman Emperor.

Calling the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire is not at all like calling America the British Empire. The Byzantine Empire was the same political body as the Roman Empire. At no point did they say "From henceforth we are a different empire." The only thing that happened was that they starting speaking Greek and calling the Emperor 'Basileos.'

The Roman Republic kept rising and rising in strength until it was destroyed. The Empire grew in strength for 200 years, then started to decay. In fact by the 150's the population of the western portion started to decrease.

Yes, the Empire eventually fell. I think a good deal of this is due to mismanagement, bad Emperors, etc. Look, I am not an enemy of the Republic nor do I demean its achievements. In general, I have a great deal of admiration for al things Roman, and I recognize that the Republic was very important. The Empire cannot be seperated from the Republic in all ways. Therefore, when you talk of the rise of the Republic and the fall of the Empire, I think of the rise and fall of Rome as one culture.

The question is, would a prolonged Republican system (i.e. Augustus never took over) have lasted longer or with greater success than the Empire? Looking at the chronic civil wars of the late Republic, I don't think so. So the Empire eventuall declined, but it was fantastic while it lasted.

Hail Caesar!

If you want to talk about military efficacy look at the Roman Republic. The Empire never fought anyone on the level of Hannibal..

Attila the Hun was perhaps as deadly, and the Western Romans fought him off in their death throes. Also, look into Heraclius' final victory over the Persians. The Eastern Wars against the Sassanids were just as much a drain on resources as the Punic Wars, and were fought against a cunning an entrenched enemy.

I will grant you that no one as formidable as Hannibal ever showed up. However, the Romans did not put on a great display of military efficacy during the Punic Wars (Cannae? Trebbia?) until Scipio. The Republic was tough, but Hannibal almost won the war. I think if Carthage was willing to give him more troops and put more pressure on the Roman navy, Hannibal could easily have won.

I agree to an extent that power does have a tendency to corrupt. But the primary cause of negative corruption is a moral decay. So I would argue that the death of the Republic was caused by the decay of morality and civic virtue. Of this, Caesar was just a symptom. Just because he lived in a decadent period does not give him the right to usurp the Republic and declare himself dictator for life.

I really refrain from making this a moral argument. I say this not only because of my Nietzschean ideas, but also because I view the problems of Roman history as cases of mismanagement, poor military allocation, and a lot of bad economic decisions. The Romans were, in general, horrible economists.

No, it wasn't an oligarchy.

I think it was. There was a lot of power concentrated in the hands of a relatively small amount of people. Maybe it was larger than the traditional oligarchy, which might mean 10 people or so, but it was still 'rule by the few.'

Why? You don't consider her a "real" philosopher? Do yourself a favor and read it. I'm not going to go through everything that is wrong with what you believe.

I'm having so much fun discussing history, I really don't want to discuss Ayn Rand right now.

[Praxus]

The main idealistic interpretation is that the Republic was a great, democratic, and egalitarian system. I know you don't think that, but some people have.

I don't know of any serious author who ever considered the Roman Republic a "democratic... egalitarian system". Could you please give me a writing from an historian of the past 2,500 years that ever claimed the Roman Republic to be that? I ask you, because I have never heard of this interpretation of the Republic.

As Victor Davis Hanson has been pointed out, modern classicist and historians are deeply cynical. I have read quite a bit from modern historians and I, for the most part, agree with that assessment. They are affected, like every other type of liberal arts study, by the plague of multiculturalism.

Note: They read classical sources and that is where they get most of their information about Rome. So it would be wise to read the actual sources of the time period in question. Determine if these sources are valid, then read modern sources, and weed out the new knowledge they gained from modern Archeology.

Related to this is the analysis that the decline of Rome was due to a loss of virtue or morality. Of course, the decline of Rome was a very complex event, as Professor Bury will tell us, but I don't think it was a moral decay.

The fate of civilization is primarily determined by the prevailing philosophy. If the prevailing philosophy is anti-reason (mystic or nihilistic), the civilization will decay. If it is pro-reason and egoistic, the civilization will flourish.

For instance, the founding fathers were very fond of certain individuals. Especially Cato the Younger and Cicero, as well as Brutus and Cassius and all the other conspirators. However, they made a mistake with many of these men. Cato was a fairly upright man it seems. Brutus also may have been idealistic, even Marc Antony defended him. However, Marc Antony also said that all the other conspirators killed the man Caesar, not the supposed tyrant, proving that many of the conspirators killed for base reasons.

I don't think it would be wise to trust the word of one of histories basest men (Marcus Antonius).

It means a great deal. It cancels out notions that the Republic was a pure and upright system. The patrician class made decisions that benefitted themselves primarily, often neglecting the lower classes. That is not to say that the lower classes were completely ignored, because they did make advances.

I never made the claim that the Republic was a "pure and upright" system.

May Gibbon bring you many joys. However, remember that much of the later half (the Byzantine part) is biased and somewhat inaccurate.

I will determine that for myself. Read what I said about modern historians above.

However, it seems like Rome prospered more under a good Emperor than it did under a good consul. Essentially, an imperial system can bring greater benefits or greater failures than a democratic system.

Can you prove to me that Romans had greater benefits under the Empire, then they did under the Republic?

Yes, the Republic did bring peace for a long while. However, in its last years we saw an increasing rate and severity of civil wars. Some of the prominent examples are the Marius-Sulla feud, the Clodius mob rule in the 50s, Caesar vs. Pompey, Second Triumvirate vs. Brutus and Cassius, and finally Octavian vs. Antony. Also things like Spartacus' slave revolt didn't help things.

The Republic had a longer period without civil wars, then the Empire did.

The Empire was slowly eaten alive by primitive barbarian tribes lead by fools. The Republic faced down a general on the level of Alexander and defeated him.

So, it wasn't all statues. Far from it, the Romans were practical people dedicated to functional buildings.

Yeah, I didn't mean to say statues. I meant to say the "Public Works projects".

[Bulgaroctonus]

Before I reply to your other post I'll offer some of the following words on the terms 'Byzantine' and 'Roman.' I strongly consider the Byzantine Empire the Roman Empire, since that is what its inhabitants thought.

The term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople by German historian Hieronymus Wolf, who introduced a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors. Standardization of the term did not occur until the 18th century, when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Hieronymus himself was influenced by the rift caused by the 9th century dispute between Romans (Byzantines as we render them today) and Franks, who, under Charlemagne's newly formed empire, and in concert with the Pope, attempted to legitimize their conquests by claiming inheritance of Roman rights in Italy thereby renouncing their eastern neighbours as true Romans.

Romans is the political name by which the Greeks were known during Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The name originally signified the inhabitants of the city of Rome in Italy, but with the elevation of the Greeks in the Roman Empire, it soon lost its connection with the Latins. In 212 AD, Emperor Caracella's Constitutio Antoniniana granted all free people in all Roman provinces citizenship. However, the Greeks transmogrified their newly acquired political title (Romans) and began to refer to themselves as Romioi (Romios/Ρωμιος for singular). The new term was created in order to establish a dualistic connotation that represented the Greeks' Roman citizenship and their Hellenic ancestry, culture, and language. Moreover, the new term represented the Greeks' religious affiliation toward Orthodox Christendom signifying that the Christianization of the Roman Empire led to only the religious vitiation of the name Hellene. Overall, the word Romios came to represent the Greek inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire. It remains still in use today in Greece, being the most popular national name after Hellene.

The foreign borrowed name initially had a more political than national meaning, which went hand in hand with the universalizing ideology of Rome that aspired to encompass all nations of the world under one true God. Up until the early 7th century, when the Empire still extended over large areas and many peoples, the use of the name Roman always indicated citizenship and never descent. Various ethnicities could apply their own ethnonyms or toponyms to disambiguate citizenship from genealogy, which is why the historian Procopius prefers to call the Byzantines Hellenized Romans, while other authors use Romhellenes and Graecoromans,aiming to indicate descent and citizenship simultaneously. The Lombard and Arab invasions in the same century resulted in the loss of most of the provinces including Italy and all of Asia, save for Anatolia. The areas that did remain were mostly Greek, thereby turning the empire into a much more cohesive unit that eventually developed a fairly self-conscious identity. Unlike in the previous centuries, there is a clear sense of nationalism reflected in Byzantine documents towards the end of the 1st millennium AD.

The Byzantines' failure to protect the Pope from the Lombards forced the Pope to search for help elsewhere. The man who answered his call was Pepin II of Aquitaine, whom he had named "Patrician", a title that caused a serious conflict. In 772, Rome ceased commemorating the emperor that first ruled from Constantinople, and in 800 Charlemagne was crowned Roman emperor by the Pope himself, officially rejecting Byzantines as true Romans. According to the Frankish interpretation of events, the papacy appropriately "transferred Roman imperial authority from the Greeks to the Germans, in the name of His Greatness, Charles". From then on, a war of names revolved around Roman imperial rights. Unable to deny that an emperor did exist in Constantinople, they sufficed in renouncing him as an successor of Roman heritage on the grounds that Greeks have nothing to do with the Roman legacy. Pope Nicholas I wrote to Emperor Michael III, "You ceased to be called 'Emperor of the Romans', since the Romans whom you claim to be Emperor of, are in fact according to you barbarians."

Henceforth, the emperor in the East was known and referred to as Emperor of the Greeks and their land as Greek Empire, reserving both "Roman" titles for the Frankish king. The interests of both sides were nominal rather than actual. No land areas were ever claimed, but the insult the Byzantines took on the accusation demonstrates how close at heart the Roman name [ρωμαίος] had become to them. In fact, Bishop Cremon Liutprand, a delegate of the Frankish court, was briefly imprisoned in Constantinople for not referring to the Roman emperor by his appropriate title. His imprisonment was a reprisal for the re-establishment of the Holy Roman Empire by his king, Otto I.

[canadian boy]

I say cesear was the best, although his reign was short he was still very respected by his peopel, especially the soldiers he commanded

[Bulgaroctonus]

I don't know of any serious author who ever considered the Roman Republic a "democratic... egalitarian system". Could you please give me a writing from an historian of the past 2,500 years that ever claimed the Roman Republic to be that? I ask you, because I have never heard of this interpretation of the Republic.

I do need to check over my sources here. It is possible that the misinterpretation I speak of is an erroneous projection. I shall humble myself before the historians. Foremost, I must read more!

As Victor Davis Hanson has been pointed out, modern classicist and historians are deeply cynical. I have read quite a bit from modern historians and I, for the most part, agree with that assessment. They are affected, like every other type of liberal arts study, by the plague of multiculturalism.

I don't follow you here. There is nothing wrong with being cynical. After all, Gibbon was a deeply critical and cynical man, as you'll find out soon enough.

What do you mean by multiculturalism? How is that phenomenon undermining our historians?

The fate of civilization is primarily determined by the prevailing philosophy. If the prevailing philosophy is anti-reason (mystic or nihilistic), the civilization will decay. If it is pro-reason and egoistic, the civilization will flourish.

That does seem to be true in some cases, but I still think much of Rome's decay was due to economic problems, not a large shift in prevailing philosophy. I may be wrong about this.

I don't think it would be wise to trust the word of one of histories basest men (Marcus Antonius).

I'll look for more sources then. Why is Marc Antony seen as so bad?

I never made the claim that the Republic was a "pure and upright" system.

Alright.

I will determine that for myself. Read what I said about modern historians above.

Fair enough, but my sentiments are echoed by many historians. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is the greatest historical work of all time, but it does have some glaring problems. For example, Gibbon said that the Byzantine Empire existed in a perpetual state of decline. That is not true, and that erroneous statement colors Volumes IV - VI.

In any case, its very enjoyable.

Can you prove to me that Romans had greater benefits under the Empire, then they did under the Republic?

I'll cite a few basic criteria.

Under the last century of the Republic, the citizens of Rome were increasingly terrorized by lawlessness. Different dictators were able to take hold of the city (i.e. Sulla) and create widespread upheaval. When Augustus finally took control, he granted the Roman people a much-needed reprieve from the instability of the Later Republic.

Also, Augustus and other Emperors after him reformed the Empire's tax laws, to the benefit of the plebeians. Of course, none of the Romans were shrewd economists, so they made the mistake of taxing agriculture too heavily to pay for the army.

The building projects of the Empire outdid those of the Republic. The civic infrastructure that the Emperors built raised the standard of living for many subjects. As I said before, the Roman Emperors commanded resources faster than the Republic, and they were able to make Rome a truly great city.

Many of the realms cities and roads were built during the Imperial period, and this improved commerce and transportation immensely.

I can list more examples for you. Of course, the political rights of the Roman people were crushed, and the Emperor had ultimate sway. However, the prosperity and strength of the Pax Romana more than made up for this loss of liberty.

The Republic had a longer period without civil wars, then the Empire did.

The Empire was slowly eaten alive by primitive barbarian tribes lead by fools. The Republic faced down a general on the level of Alexander and defeated him.

I did acknowledge that the Republic had a longer period without civil wars. My point is that during the last century of Republican rule, the civil wars were becoming so harmful that some kind of strong centralized rule was necessary. The Republic could not continue indefinitely.

Also, the warlords that led the barabarians were certainly not fools. Fritigern, Alaric, and Gaiseric were all cunning men that played the weakness of the Empire to their advantage. Also, the Germans attacked the Empire over a longer period of time, in greater numbers, and over a larger front than Hannibal did.

The Romans also had to contend with the Sassanids in the East.

Yeah, I didn't mean to say statues. I meant to say the "Public Works projects".

Alright.

[Bulgaroctonus]

I say cesear was the best, although his reign was short he was still very respected by his peopel, especially the soldiers he commanded

Julius Caesar was a great leader. However, I did not include him in this poll because he never held the title imperator or 'emperor.' If you like Julius Caesar, pick his adopted heir, Augustus.

[Swift Sword]

Bulgaroctonus,

Interesting poll.

I happened to cast for Augustus but taken as a crew, I think the Flavians were a reasonable bunch for a dynasty and good for Rome. What do you think?

[Bulgaroctonus]

Bulgaroctonus,

Interesting poll.

I happened to cast for Augustus but taken as a crew, I think the Flavians were a reasonable bunch for a dynasty and good for Rome. What do you think?

Vespasian (r.69-79) was a great emperor, and so was his elder son Titus (r. 79-81). However, the younger son, Domitian (r. 81-96) proved to be a rather tyannical and incompetent Emperor.

Therefore, I have a mixed opinion on the Flavians.

[Jedi_Iatros]

Augustus!


As for Tiberius, that dude murdered Germanicus, fled to Capri and plastered his room with pornographic pictures expecting his subjects to perform them (girls and boys) and backstabbed Sejanus after they were friends and his personal advisor for a long time (that bastard actually deserved it).

[gunnut]

Why ith Bigguth Dickuth not up there?

Hail Thaether!

[Bulgaroctonus]

Augustus!


As for Tiberius, that dude murdered Germanicus, fled to Capri and plastered his room with pornographic pictures expecting his subjects to perform them (girls and boys) and backstabbed Sejanus after they were friends and his personal advisor for a long time (that bastard actually deserved it).

Germanicus died in 19 AD in Antioch, Syria. It is not known exactly how he died, but it is rumored that he was poisoned at the behest of Tiberius. In any case, Rome lost an excellent general and leader. As an eventual emperor, Germanicus could have outdone Augustus. Alas, so rarely are the most competenet elevated to the halls of power.

His pornographic escapades do not do him credit. Nonetheless, I find Tiberius to be one of the most complex of the Roman Emperors. He deserves mention as one of Rome's best generals, winning many campaigns before assuming the imperial throne. However, as an emperor he became withdrawn and moody symptoms that may have to do with the emotional stress caused by his forced divorce from his first wife, Vipsania.

Also, Sejanus was an unscrupulous person that deserved death.

[The Chap]

Late to the battle.

The Emp. Julian (The Appostate) Four years. saved the bloody Empire. Ask Gibbon. I refuse to vote otherwise.

[Trajan]

I voted for the Emperor Trajan. This being my belief that he was indeed the greatest. And while many believe that Augustus was, Trajan out-does him in my opinion.

Augustus was an Emperor of circumstance. His rise was in a time when it was overly ripe for a single man to take the reins. The Republic was too large to contain via a democratic apparatus at the time. The Roman Army had shown in the past that their loyalty could be shifted from the Senate to a carismatic general. Thus the Senate had no choice but to allow Augustus to come to power. Without him the Republic would have undoubtably gone down in a long spiral, like a man trying to keep so many grains of sand in his hands. Thus Augustus was an Emperor of circumstance.

Then we have Trajan, not of Roman, but provincial decent, who comes to power. He has the loyalty of the armies, pays respect and gives back some power to the Senate; he brings back old ways and beliefs, making himself popular with the Patricians, but then as well he grants new public works (all emperors did really) that helped gain favor with the pleblians. He also subdued the Praetorian Guard into accepting him with just his mere personality.

Then for military prowess, Trajan defeated Parthia, even going so far as to make Mesopotmia and Assyria Roman provinces. In doing this he regained the lost banners the Legions had lost more than 50 years before when Nero had attempted to fight a war with Parthia. It was at that moment that the Roman Empire stood at its greatest extent. By establishing the Tigris River as the Empire's eastern boundry, the land area of the Empire, knit together by 180,000 miles of roads, was about 3,500,000 miles so that it was roughly the size of the USA of today.

No once since has been able to do what he did. And only his old age kept him from going further to follow the footsteps of Alexander.