Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Roman Emperor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Augusto was not an Emperor, he hold the title of Prince
    The first Emperor was his sucessor Tiberius ,In my point of view, the best pagan Roman Emperor was Claudius, his realm was thoughtful .
    The best Christian Emperor, Constantine,

    Comment


    • #62
      Apparently, Gibbon believed otherwise:
      "They refused to accept the resignation of Augustus; they conjured him not to desert the republic which he had saved. AFter a decent resistance the crafty tyrant submitted to the orders of the senate; and consented to receive the government of provinces, and the general command of the Roman armies, under the well-known names of Proconsul and IMPERATOR." --"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", by Gibbon, p61.

      "They recieved and held their commissions at the will of a superior, to whose auspicious influence the merit of their action was legally attributed. They were the representatives of the emperor. The emperor alone was the general of the republic, and his jurisdiction, civil was well as military, extended over all the conquests of Rome." --"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", by Gibbon, p63

      Constantine wasn't a Christian. He wasn't baptized till he was on his death-bed.
      "When at last he felt the approach of death he received baptism, declaring to the bishops who had assembled around him that, after the example of Christ, he had desired to receive the saving seal in the Jordan, but that God had ordained otherwise, and he would no longer delay baptism."
      CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Constantine the Great
      Last edited by Kansas Bear; 20 Jan 08,, 04:20.

      Comment


      • #63
        Septimus Severus was probably the most capable man to ever take the purple. Unfortunatly, except for him the Severun dynasty was a disaster.
        "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

        Comment


        • #64
          Bearing in mind the question is who was the best Emperor I voted Augustus since there would not have been any Emperors after him had he not had such a successful career.

          Comment


          • #65
            With regards to the Byzantine empire certain truths must be said to clarify the confusion.

            The Roman empire after the trasfer of its capital to Constantinople by Constantine I in the 4th century, and even after the death of emperor Theodosius I when it split permanently, continued to have as its official language Latin. However the great majority of its people spoke Greek.
            This situation continued for almost 250 years. After that even its emperors in the 6th century spoke Greek and the official language by the time of emperor Herakleios became Greek, but they continued to call themselves Romioi (Romans).
            The reason for their insistence to be called Romioi instead of Hellenes (Greeks) had to do with the fact that a lot of people in Greece proper had continued with the ancient Greek religion (12 Gods), their philosophical schools, their temples etc.
            The great majority though of the people in the empire especially in the Asiatic provinces were strong Christians and for them the name Greek was considered to be pagan, and didn't want to be associated with paganism. The outside world however were calling them properly "The Empire of the Greeks" and were considered Greeks.
            It was in the later dynasties of the Byzantines that they started to call themselves Hellenes and be proud of it, and exploring the ancient Greek civilization.

            There were very substansial differences between the ancien Roman empire and the Byzantine empire of the middle ages.
            1) The language was different being Greek.
            2) The culture was also very different even though they kept some of the administrative practices of the ancient Roman empire.
            3) The religion also was different being Orthodoxy instead of Catholicism with different rituals and practices than those in the Latin West.
            Last edited by falcon1131; 01 Feb 09,, 21:35.

            Comment


            • #66
              Was surprised that old Vespasian didn't get a better showing in the ratings! Ugly sod but brought a period of well needed calm to the Empire after a pretty hetic 12 months of shennanighans under Galba, Otho and Vitellius and the abyssmal Nero.

              Old Vespa has my vote and the Centurian from the 3rd Gallica that got him there!!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Scotsman View Post
                Was surprised that old Vespasian didn't get a better showing in the ratings! Ugly sod but brought a period of well needed calm to the Empire after a pretty hetic 12 months of shennanighans under Galba, Otho and Vitellius and the abyssmal Nero.

                Old Vespa has my vote and the Centurian from the 3rd Gallica that got him there!!
                Constantine would be my choice

                Comment


                • #68
                  Byzantine emperors such as Justinian had absolutely nothing to do with Rome. Justinian was a Serbian that spoke Greek.....

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Emperors were the worst thing to happen to Roma... The great Republic succumbed to populism...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by pate View Post
                      Emperors were the worst thing to happen to Roma... The great Republic succumbed to populism...
                      ....inevitable really though with all the power and wealth concentrated through those that commanded the loyalty of the Legions.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Pink View Post
                        Byzantine emperors such as Justinian had absolutely nothing to do with Rome. Justinian was a Serbian that spoke Greek.....
                        The same is true for other Roman emperors in the earlier Roman empire like for example in the glorious dynasty of the Antonines. They were Iberians who spoke Latin.
                        What makes the difference is the conscience that they had.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by falcon1131 View Post
                          The same is true for other Roman emperors in the earlier Roman empire like for example in the glorious dynasty of the Antonines. They were Iberians who spoke Latin.
                          What makes the difference is the conscience that they had.
                          They were of colonial extraction though weren't they?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by pate View Post
                            Emperors were the worst thing to happen to Roma... The great Republic succumbed to populism...
                            I wonder if the average Roman noticed a difference between Senate rule and Emperor rule? The Roman senate was not exactly known for its genteel ways. Was it better to be ruled by one tyrant, or a group of tyrants in conflict with each other?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Diocletianus

                              I am proud of the knowledge that has been displayed on this post, but also perplexed at some of the logic (Julius Caesar was not an Emperor, he was a military dictator).

                              Caesar Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus is missing from the discussion, and I expected that he would have more votes, given the fact that he was responsible for holding the empire together at one of its weakest points. Without him, the empire may have collapsed nearly 250 years earlier than it did!

                              My Case:

                              Accomplishments:
                              1. Separated and enlarged the empire's civil and military services
                              2. Reorganized the empire's provincial divisions--establishing the largest and most bureaucratic government in the history of the empire
                              3. Established new administrative centers in Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Antioch, and Trier, closer to the empire's frontiers than the traditional capital at Rome
                              4. Building on third-century trends towards absolutism, Diocletian styled himself an autocrat, elevating himself above the empire's masses with imposing forms of court ceremonial and architecture.
                              5. Bureaucratic and military growth, constant campaigning, and construction projects increased the state's expenditures, and necessitated a comprehensive tax reform.
                              6. Taxation was standardized, made more equitable, and levied at generally higher rates.
                              7. Reformed the monetary system
                              8. Separated power to better fit the geographic and societal areas of the empire
                              8. First Roman emperor to voluntarily abdicate the position.



                              Shortcomings:
                              (Not all Diocletian's plans were successful)

                              Edict on Maximum Prices, Diocletian's attempt to curb inflation via price controls, was unsuccessful, counterproductive, and quickly ignored.

                              Christian Persecution: only a shortcoming because he was not successful in eliminating the Christians, maybe a bad choice because Christianity did later unite the empire... It's a judgement call.

                              The Tetrarchy failed after he left, but this was not his fault--Maxentius and Constantine are to blame for this.



                              In spite of his failures, Diocletian's reforms fundamentally changed the structure of Roman imperial government and helped stabilize the empire economically and militarily, enabling an empire that had seemed near the brink of collapse in Diocletian's youth to remain essentially intact for another hundred years.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X