NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think is the best Roman Emperor? I don't mean the eastern Roman Empire(Later known as the Byzantine empire) I think Vespasian was the best Emperor,he put the Imperial Treasury in the black, didn't belive himself to be a god(Like the Emporers before him) and was pretty tolerent.

By all accounts, Augustus Caesar and Tiberius Caesar were great (even if Tiberius didn't really want the job), and Marcus Aurelius was good.

Nero :p

I know this is going to soud odd, but personally I think Gaius Julius Caeser was the best, If you dont count him I think Trajan (Spelling) was also the best. He recognized that Rome had reached its limits and pulled out of the Mesopetamian area which saved the empires already thinly stretched forces.

In lee of these two Marcus Aurelius.

Nero :p

Caligula.

Nero :p

Yeah, killed all those pesky Christians. Too bad he didn't finish the job. What a n00b persecutor:p.

Constantine. "In hoc signo."

Nero was fucking gangster as shit. He appointed his horse to the senate to spite his political enemies and he supposedly played music while Rome burned. I can't think of a more awesome dude.

By all accounts, Augustus Caesar and Tiberius Caesar
Yeah but Tiberius became paranoid and ruled from an Island near the end of his reign.

Vespasian did pretty well. He also allowed the establishment of a Jewish school of learning after the destruction of the Temple, which helped the Jews maintain continuity.

The best Caesar?

Salad.

Nero was fucking gangster as shit. He appointed his horse to the senate to spite his political enemies and he supposedly played music while Rome burned. I can't think of a more awesome dude.

Caligula was cooler. :p

Caligula.

:p you beat me to it.

My favourite is the one who persecuted Spartacus.

"I'm Spartacus!"

Constantine :cool: pretty much saved the empire from falling to the Christians by converting and making peace. He also ordered and administered the council of Nicea that decided what went into the bible, one of the most influencial books in history. On top of all the religios stuff, he moved the capital to Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul making it a powerful, important city, one with a later ruler who sent the letter that sparked the crusades. I think Constantine was definetly the best emperor.

My favourite is the one who persecuted Spartacus.

"I'm Spartacus!"

I'm Spartacus!

Sadly, though, there was no emperor at the time. Rome was still a republic.

Constantine did not however, make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. That was Theodisus.

Constantine did not however, make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. That was Theodisus
(Looks through giant roman history book)Dang,you're right!My mistake.

Augustus.

Master manipulator.

Second...

"Caligula".

Now THATS debauchery!

I'm Spartacus!

That guy!
Right there.

HE's Spartacus!


I aint getting dragged off by no soldiers.

I know this is going to soud odd, but personally I think Gaius Julius Caeser was the best,

Well, I don't...he wasn't an emperor.

Trajan. He might have enjoyed the wine, and was somewhat of a pederast, but he restrained himself and didn't act on it. That, and the fact that after he left the Senate they honored knew emperors with felicior Augusto, melior Traiano, (may he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan), means he was pretty much regarded as the best emperor in his time, and after.

That guy!
Right there.

HE's Spartacus!


I aint getting dragged off by no soldiers.

Yeah, that's what the real Spartacus would say, to avoid detection! ;)

Yeah, that's what the real Spartacus would say, to avoid detection! ;)

Doh!

My vote is for Caligula too, you'd never be bored with him around.

My personal favourite is Claudius, and I also feel he did a very good job, stabilizing the Empire and restoring public faith in the system after the excesses of Caligula. Also, like Augustus, he ruled for a reasonably long period, which also improved stability.

Of the Caesars listed, Augustus was almost certainly the best. A gifted statesman, intelligent and wise ruler, and in his younger days a military general of repute, Augustus was the archetype of the benevolent autocrat.

Which is why I will not vote for him. His actions and his brilliance cemented the hold of the Caesars, ensuring that there would be no return to Republic rule. And this, I feel, led directly to the decline and eventual fall of the greatest of the ancient empires.

I personally say Caligula cuz he was so god damn insane, woot!

I'm going to be unoriginal and say Julius Caesar.

*shrug*

Hmmm, which nutter/fascist/dictator to pick?

Aurelius seems the least crappy of the lot, if just for being slightly relatively moderate and important to Stoic philosophy.

You forgot Caligula D:

gogo crazy Roman emperors!

Heraclius, if you'll accept him as having been Roman rather than Byzantine; otherwise, yes, probably either Trajan or Marcus Aurelius (with the latter losing points for his choice of heir)...

Which is why I will not vote for [Augustus]. His actions and his brilliance cemented the hold of the Caesars, ensuring that there would be no return to Republic rule. And this, I feel, led directly to the decline and eventual fall of the greatest of the ancient empires.
I don't think you can really accuse four hundred (one thousand four hundred if you include the Byzantines) of being a decline for any civilisation.

'bout Nero fiddling whilst Rome burnt... There's evidence that he was no where near Rome at the time, rushed back and helped a fair bit with the fire fighting (admittedly, probably organising rather than actually helping).

As for favourite Emperor (I know they might be a bit late, as they're just before and just after Constantine respectively), I'd probably go for Diocletian, who did a hell of a lot to keep the Empire together in the early 300s, then went off to farm cabbages: ""If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn’t dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed" and then Julian the Apostate, who tried to turn the Empire back to paganism, and nearly succeeded.

From the poll, it'd have to Augustus, even though he wasn't really an Emperor, either.

I don't like any of them.

I don't think you can really accuse four hundred (one thousand four hundred if you include the Byzantines) of being a decline for any civilisation.


I hate to say it, but the history of Byzantium is practically one long, depressing story of decay (Justinius being the lone exception, of course).

Caesar, Trajan, and Constantine have my vote.

Of the Caesars listed, Augustus was almost certainly the best. A gifted statesman, intelligent and wise ruler, and in his younger days a military general of repute, Augustus was the archetype of the benevolent autocrat.

Which is why I will not vote for him. His actions and his brilliance cemented the hold of the Caesars, ensuring that there would be no return to Republic rule. And this, I feel, led directly to the decline and eventual fall of the greatest of the ancient empires.

Good god, why? The Republic had been lurching from one disaster to another for generations, thanks to the gangsters (like Clodius and Milo), crazy demagogues (like Catiline), and clueless statesmen (too many to name) who ran it. I don't believe for one second that it would have lasted as long as the empire did.

A few pedantic points:
-A gold star to Tagmatium, for observing that Augustus wasn't really an emperor.
-Nero can't have played the fiddle while Rome burned, for the same reason that he couldn't have played a Yamaha guitar. Also, his role in organising the firefighting and providing help for the newly-homeless was acknowledged, even by his critics.
-It was Caligula, not Nero, who was said to have made his horse Incitatus a consul. In any case, the story is simply untrue.

Good god, why? The Republic had been lurching from one disaster to another for generations, thanks to the gangsters (like Clodius and Milo), crazy demagogues (like Catiline), and clueless statesmen (too many to name) who ran it. I don't believe for one second that it would have lasted as long as the empire did.
.

If he had used his political genius to drastically reforming the republic as opposed to becoming dictator, Rome may have turned out even more powerful then it did.

Other.

I choose Aurelian. He saved the ended the third century crisis, and reunited the rebelling provinces in Gaul and the middle east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian

Props go to Trajan, Hadrian, and Vespasian.

I'm pretty much anti-Roman Empire in general (due to being pro-Celt), so I hate the conquering Roman Emperors, and have little fondness for the others. I really don't like Constantine.

If he had used his political genius to drastically reforming the republic as opposed to becoming dictator, Rome may have turned out even more powerful then it did.

Drastically reform the republic? How could he do that without changing it into something else? For instance, abolishing the office of tribunus plebis, while solving a few problems, would have been the end of the republic.

Seriously, it was beyond saving. Even a quick glance at the history of the late republic shows this.

I hate to say it, but the history of Byzantium is practically one long, depressing story of decay (Justinius being the lone exception, of course).

Caesar, Trajan, and Constantine have my vote.
I entirely disagree.

There are many points when the Empire was doing very well for itself, like under Romanus II, Nicephorus I and Basil II. Isaac I Comnenus could well have turned the Empire around had he not died after only two years on the throne and Romanus IV would have done the same had he accepted Alp Arslan's offers or not been betrayed at Mantzikert by the Docases.

I entirely disagree.

There are many points when the Empire was doing very well for itself, like under Romanus II, Nicephorus I and Basil II. Isaac I Comnenus could well have turned the Empire around had he not died after only two years on the throne and Romanus IV would have done the same had he accepted Alp Arslan's offers or not been betrayed at Mantzikert by the Docases.

Very true!

Also, what about Heraclius? He fought a long and brutal campaign and utterly defeated the Sassanids. He so weakened that they fell to the Arabs shortly after. He did lose much ground the the Arab advance, however, but he was not personally in the field. (I think he was too old at the time)

Also, what about Heraclius? He fought a long and brutal campaign and utterly defeated the Sassanids. He so weakened that they fell to the Arabs shortly after. He did lose much ground the the Arab advance, however, but he was not personally in the field. (I think he was too old at the time)
It's not quite my time period, but the campaigns did also royally fuck up the Byzantines, as they had fought for so long. It's also one of the reasons why the north coast of Africa, which had been the bread basket of the Empire, became a desert because of the lack of attention payed to farming in that period, as well as the armies marching up and down and sacking everything all the time.

Nero was fucking gangster as shit. He appointed his horse to the senate to spite his political enemies
That was Caligula.

and he supposedly played music while Rome burned. I can't think of a more awesome dude.

Supposedly. Most accounts say he tried to put-out the fire, one of the few good deeds he ever performed. He also set-up a relief-fund for victims of the fire.

Bah, I remember all these names but don't remember anything associated with them. I did get a C in that class, though.... :p

Caligula appointed a horse to the Senate, but Elagabalus actually made one Empress-or was it a mule?
Anyway, my favorite of the Roman Emperors was Hadrian-the Empire reached it's height under his reign, and he toured it with his entire court so the average citizen would get a chance to see the Imperial government in action, and to get away from his wife. His young lover drowned in Egypt, so Hadrian remained there long enough to erect a temple in the boy's honor, then resumed his touring for the rest of his reign.

I entirely disagree.

There are many points when the Empire was doing very well for itself, like under Romanus II, Nicephorus I and Basil II. Isaac I Comnenus could well have turned the Empire around had he not died after only two years on the throne and Romanus IV would have done the same had he accepted Alp Arslan's offers or not been betrayed at Mantzikert by the Docases.

I agree totally. The Byzantines have long been looked down on as somehow second-rate, but I figure anyone who could hold the line in the East for as long as they did had to be doing something right.

Flavius Claudius Iulianus, also known as Julian the Apostate, the last Pagan Emperor.

Flavius Claudius Iulianus, also known as Julian the Apostate, the last Pagan Emperor.

I like Julian, too, thanks to Gore Vidal, but he was emperor for only two years and a bit, so it's kind of hard to decide if he was the "best."

I like Julian, too, thanks to Gore Vidal, but he was emperor for only two years and a bit, so it's kind of hard to decide if he was the "best."

I think I'm biased on account of my own apostasy to Paganism :p

Augustus or Aurelius, leaning towards Augustus.

I'd say Gallenius ranks pretty highly, along with Augustus and Marcus Aurelius.

I don't think you can really accuse four hundred (one thousand four hundred if you include the Byzantines) of being a decline for any civilisation.

'bout Nero fiddling whilst Rome burnt... There's evidence that he was no where near Rome at the time, rushed back and helped a fair bit with the fire fighting (admittedly, probably organising rather than actually helping).

As for favourite Emperor (I know they might be a bit late, as they're just before and just after Constantine respectively), I'd probably go for Diocletian, who did a hell of a lot to keep the Empire together in the early 300s, then went off to farm cabbages: ""If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn’t dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed" and then Julian the Apostate, who tried to turn the Empire back to paganism, and nearly succeeded.

From the poll, it'd have to Augustus, even though he wasn't really an Emperor, either.


yet Diocletian divided the Empire for good when he made the Tetrachy. It worked under him but afterwards the West and East Emperors often fought eachother for power over the whole empire, further weakening it..

I myself voted for Vespasian. He stopped the civil war, restored a good economy. He held the Empire together at time were it was in serious problems.

I agree totally. The Byzantines have long been looked down on as somehow second-rate, but I figure anyone who could hold the line in the East for as long as they did had to be doing something right.

Totally right. The Byzantines deserve musch more recognition :p

Claudius -totally unsuitable for Emperor yet ends up enlarging Empire more anyone since Augustus

Constantine is by far the worst.

The best is probably Augustus.

My favourite is the one who persecuted Spartacus.

"I'm Spartacus!"

*enslaves Curious Inquiry, forces CI to be a Gladiator*

TIberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus was a really underrated emperor. As Robert Graves puts it in his (historical fiction, but with a surprising emphasis on fact) book I, Claudius, Claudius gave Rome "water and winter bread."

yet Diocletian divided the Empire for good when he made the Tetrachy. It worked under him but afterwards the West and East Emperors often fought eachother for power over the whole empire, further weakening it..

I myself voted for Vespasian. He stopped the civil war, restored a good economy. He held the Empire together at time were it was in serious problems.
The Empire was already divided rather badly by that point. Diocletian managed to limited the damage, admittedly by his personality alone. After he retired from emperor-ship (if that is actually a position), the Roman Empire was dying rather rapidly. It took Emperors such as Theodius or Julian the Apostate to fully apply the sort of arms to keep it together.

Constantine made the best as he could have considering the position.

Aurelius would have a much better legacy if he hadn't made Commodus his successor, or if his son wasn't such a screw up.

Prick was brought up to be Emperor and had to be a lunatic. He took over Rome at it's height at age 18 after all the hard work was done and basically brought about the beginning of the end.

Trajan, the Roman Empire was the biggest (and therefore, the strongest, I assume) during his reign... that's an achievement that no one can surpass or deny...

Otto I the Great. :D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_I%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor)

I'm honestly surprised at how many people here claim Julian as the greatest. Yes, he was a reactionary Pagan, banning Christians from teaching the classics. All he really did was try to reform Paganism after Christianity and failed. While he put through some necessary administrative reforms that were very beneficial, he caused massive amounts of hostility between Paganism and Christianity and likely only hastened it's downfall after his death in his debacle in the east.

Not sure who I'd vote for, Trajan or Hadrian I suppose. Interesting side note, Trajan is the only pre-Christian Roman Emperor to be accorded a place in Paradise by Dante.

-snip-
But by no means was Chistianity the "main" religion by that point. Julian was able to reverse the gains of Christainity very well purely because it had not caught on as the "official" religion as much as the one propagated by the Empire.

Agreed, but how did he do it, by modeling Pagan priesthoods after Christianity, by trying to force Pagan temples to engage in charity, like the Christians. It is not until after Julian that Christianity and Paganism really starting going after each other, leading to much destruction of ancient temples and writings of Pagan authors. Christians had always been paranoid thanks to Galienus and Julian just brought those memories back and once he was gone the church went on its way wiping out Paganism.

The Empire was already divided rather badly by that point. Diocletian managed to limited the damage, admittedly by his personality alone. After he retired from emperor-ship (if that is actually a position), the Roman Empire was dying rather rapidly. It took Emperors such as Theodius or Julian the Apostate to fully apply the sort of arms to keep it together.

Constantine made the best as he could have considering the position.

still Diocletian established the permanent division of the Empire.. I agree he was not the worst.. He was just not that best either in my opinion :)

Julian the Apostate held the most promise of any of the Emperors-had he not been slain by Persian assassins, he would have not only nipped Christianity and Islam in the bud, but would have conquered the Middle East and prevented the Dark Ages and the Crusades by his actions. However, due to the shortness of his reign, he did neither, and thus it falls to "Who did the best" as opposed to "Who had the most promise". My vote still goes to Hadrian, who is still not in the poll...

My favourite is the one who persecuted Spartacus.

"I'm Spartacus!"

That was during the Republic. And that was the inept General Marcus Licinius Crassus. He also went to Syria to fight the Persians, got his ass kicked, his head chopped off and thrown at the feet of the Parthian king.

As for my favorite/who I believe to be the best emperor(s), here goes:

1. Justinian (Does he count?, after all, he was smart about appointing subordinates and managing the empire and reforming the law system of the empire, though I'm not sure if by that point it could still be called the Roman Empire. By his reign, I think the Ostrogoths were in Italy already, so you may consider this the Byzantine period already.)

1. If my other choice doesn't count, then Trajan. Definitely. He gets brownie points for being a Spaniard.

2. Octavian Augustus Caesar, or Gaius Julius Caesar. They created the empire, after all. Augustus was one excellent administrator, and Julius is easily one of the most brilliant military and political minds to have ever lived.

3. Constantine. He was the first one to really realize that persecuting individual religious groups was a waste of time/resources. He paved the way for modern Europe by legalizing Christianity (it is a common misconception that Constantine made Christianity the Roman state religion. That was actually Theodosius. Constantine only made Christianity legal, and converted to Christianity on his deathbed.)

3.(this one is also tied) Diolectian. He effectively prolonged the empire's lifespan by another 300 years. The empire was falling apart when he came to power, after the period of the 50 emperors, and reformed a corrupt, inefficient beauracracy, gave the legions something to have an alliegence to, and reversed the hyper-inflation and solved the other economic problems the empire was facing. If it weren't for him, the empire would have fallen apart in the 200's, rather than in the 400's(500's if you count the Ostrogothic kingdom as a continuation of the Western Roman Empire).

4. Claudius - Even if he didn't necessarily want the job and had a walking disability, he was a brilliant administrator and helped to repair the damage done by Nero and Caligula. He also had corrupt officials removed from office.

5. Theodosius - for instituting the wonderful practice of burning pagans and heretics at the stake. He made Christianity the state religion, and was the first emperor to actually hate on the old ways.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne, or Charles the Great) - HA! You never specified which Roman Empire! Carolus Magnus (I refuse to call him by that silly French name. He was Holy Roman Emperor, therefore, his Latin name will be used) was the first one to effectively reestablish the Western Roman Empire (or at least to establish something that might pass for it). Brought some semblance of order back to Europe in the dark ages.

2. Ottonius Magnus (Otto the Great) - Revitalized the Holy Roman Empire at a time when it was dwindling to little more than an abstract concept. Pushed back the borders of those pesky French, and saved western Europe from invasion by the Magyars, Avars, and Slavs.

3. Charles V - Charles V made the Holy Roman Empire actually exist as more than just an abstract concept. He also presided over some ass-kicking against the French back when the French were actually competent, forged an alliance with England(temporarily), and began in ernest the establishment of European colonies/empires in the New World. Good man.

4. St. Henry Ottonius II (St. Henry the Emperor) - revitalized the HRE when it was beginning to fragment again, making it a cohesive nation. Kicked some pagan butt, got those pesky Italian republic/cities to shut up, turned back French invasions of the Empire, drove the Poles, Magyars, and other steppe or pagan peoples back, and was a pious man to boot. He is one of the only Holy Roman Emperors who actually deserved the "Holy" in his title, and is one of only two Holy Roman Emperors to actually be buried with the Pope. Plus he's my namesake.

Julian the Apostate held the most promise of any of the Emperors-had he not been slain by Persian assassins, he would have not only nipped Christianity and Islam in the bud, but would have conquered the Middle East and prevented the Dark Ages and the Crusades by his actions. However, due to the shortness of his reign, he did neither, and thus it falls to "Who did the best" as opposed to "Who had the most promise". My vote still goes to Hadrian, who is still not in the poll...

Julian was not slain by Persian assasins. He refused to put armor on before going into battle against the Persians, and so the javelin he recieved in between his ribs, which, while still a painful injury, would not necessarily have been fatal if he had chosen to wear armor.

His attempts at reverting the Roman people back to the old ways were also futile, at best. By his reign, Christianity was far too widely followed for it to be possible to purge it from the empire.

As for "nipping Islam in the bud," Islam did not yet exist. It did not come into existance until the 7th Century, when the Arabs exploded out of the Arabian penninsula and squashed allied Sassanid (Persian) and Roman forces flat. Yes, Rome and Persia were allied then, against the Arabs, until the Persian empire ceased to effectively exist as anything but small border kingdoms. The Romano-Byzantine forces were beaten again and again until they were forced to withdraw from the near east (with the exception of Asia Minor/Anatolia) and Egypt. Therefore, Julian's campaign against Persia would have accomplished very little in way of preventing Islam's spread, and despite his efforts overall, the current religious composition of Europe (and so, the status/existance of the Crusades) would not have been significantly changed by Julian. He was just delusional to what he could do.

Julian's main contributions were that he propped up the failing beauracracy and economy of the Empire, and kept it unified, insofar as anyone could by that point.

Totally right. The Byzantines deserve musch more recognition :p

Too true.

I'm pretty much anti-Roman Empire in general (due to being pro-Celt), so I hate the conquering Roman Emperors, and have little fondness for the others. I really don't like Constantine.

You can be pro-Celt(okay, pro Celt-Iberian and be pro-Roman at the same time. I sure am.

Hooray for Asturias and Galicia!:D

If he had used his political genius to drastically reforming the republic as opposed to becoming dictator, Rome may have turned out even more powerful then it did.

Nope. I'm afraid the Republic was beyond even Julius or Augustus' brilliance to save. The thing was collapsing at a fairly alarming rate. Less than 100 years between the high years of the Republic (end of the Punic Wars) and Caesar's dictatorship. General Marius's actions didn't exactly help.

My personal favourite is Claudius, and I also feel he did a very good job, stabilizing the Empire and restoring public faith in the system after the excesses of Caligula. Also, like Augustus, he ruled for a reasonably long period, which also improved stability.

Of the Caesars listed, Augustus was almost certainly the best. A gifted statesman, intelligent and wise ruler, and in his younger days a military general of repute, Augustus was the archetype of the benevolent autocrat.

Which is why I will not vote for him. His actions and his brilliance cemented the hold of the Caesars, ensuring that there would be no return to Republic rule. And this, I feel, led directly to the decline and eventual fall of the greatest of the ancient empires.

Not really. The Republic as a dinosaur that was as good as dead before Augustus or even Julius Caesar even went in an sped up the process. The government was failing because of all the strife between the plebians and patricians. All it would have taken was one good German mass migration and without brilliant people like Caesar or Marius (who were admittedly, autocrats)Roman civilization would have been toast. If anything, the Principate (Empire) actually prolonged roman civilization to lasting damn over 2000 years (actually 2206 years the from founding of Rome to fall of Constantinople. You can tack on another 20 years if you count the fall of Trebizond as the end of Roman civilization :)

I cast my vote for the Eastern Emperor, Justinian I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Justinian

Well, I was going to respond again to the argument of Julian but I see that Fanboyists has adequately taken on the job.

As an aside I think Septimius Severus is one of the most underrated Emperors. He managed to stem the civil wars after Commodus and defeated a renewed Parthian threat in the east, repaired many of the ancient buildings and established one of the last dynasties. Unfortunately his successors turned out to be Caracalla and Elagabalus. I would also like to put forth the claim that Severus Alexander had the most promise that was squandered thanks in large part to his overbearing mother.

Actually Fanboyists I would like to ask if there is any room in your heart for Frederick Barbarossa? ;)

Define "best". Constantine and Diocletian certainly appeared to steady the Imperial ship in the increasing turbulent waters of the third and fourth centuries. Augustus efforts in consolidating and securing an empire in danger of schism were as great as the political settlement he created, however, I personally prefer Justinian. The man had ambition, few morals, and was willing to go to great lenghts to achieve his ends. He damn near did so as well.

Well, I was going to respond again to the argument of Julian but I see that Fanboyists has adequately taken on the job.

As an aside I think Septimius Severus is one of the most underrated Emperors. He managed to stem the civil wars after Commodus and defeated a renewed Parthian threat in the east, repaired many of the ancient buildings and established one of the last dynasties. Unfortunately his successors turned out to be Caracalla and Elagabalus. I would also like to put forth the claim that Severus Alexander had the most promise that was squandered thanks in large part to his overbearing mother.

Actually Fanboyists I would like to ask if there is any room in your heart for Frederick Barbarossa? ;)

Severus Alexander definitely doesn't get enough credit. Was Commodus even that bad? I always thought Commodus was just sort of average, that he didn't do anything particularly bad/stupid, but nothing terribly great either.


Yeah, I do, I just sort of forgot to mention him. Of course I don't really know much about his reign 'cept the Italians were being obnoxious shits and that he died by drowning on his way to the Third Crusade (at least I think it was the Third. Was it?) Unfortunately he loses points in my book because he died in a slightly dumb way. It's really the same reason that Genghis Khan loses points in my book, only with Genghis it's magnified by about a billion (for anyone that does not know, Genghis Khan was finished off by a combination of illness and falling off his horse. Disgraceful for a steppe nomad, who in many cases learned to ride a horse before they could walk.

Realistically, the only reason St. Henry II makes it in there is because he has the same name as me. That automatically gets him past Charles V. And I was sorely tempted to cut out Carolus Magnus, because he wasn't technically Holy Roman Emperor. He was Western Roman Emperor. Ottonius Magnus is actually the first Holy Roman Emperor.

Define "best". Constantine and Diocletian certainly appeared to steady the Imperial ship in the increasing turbulent waters of the third and fourth centuries. Augustus efforts in consolidating and securing an empire in danger of schism were as great as the political settlement he created, however, I personally prefer Justinian. The man had ambition, few morals, and was willing to go to great lenghts to achieve his ends. He damn near did so as well.

Yeah, but Justinian was paranoid, though. He locked up his best general (Belisarius) because there were a few rumors about Belisarius' ambition to rule the Western Roman Empire (which consisted of the Straits of Gibraltar, Italy up to the Alps, Sicily, and Carthage(and surrounding costal area).

Yeah, but Justinian was paranoid, though. He locked up his best general (Belisarius) because there were a few rumors about Belisarius' ambition to rule the Western Roman Empire (which consisted of the Straits of Gibraltar, Italy up to the Alps, Sicily, and Carthage(and surrounding costal area).

Given the intrigue endemic to the Byzantine court, Justinian was more than entitled to fear Belisarius' motives. There is every likelihood that Belisarius would have accepted the Gothic proposal that he rule Italy before he was withdrawn to fight Sasanian Persia; ambition of this sort emperilled Justinian's position, and was thus justifiably blunted.

Severus Alexander definitely doesn't get enough credit. Was Commodus even that bad? I always thought Commodus was just sort of average, that he didn't do anything particularly bad/stupid, but nothing terribly great either.

Commodus gets a pretty bad rap mostly due to his inability to show any respect to the Senate. This is the case with a lot of "bad" emperors, they didn't treat the Senate with enough honor and who write the histories but the Senatorial class and voila, bias. Not to say he didn't have his kooky bits, the whole "I'm a gladiator" bit to mention one. A lot of moderns ding him for abandoning the war against the Germans that his father had nearly finished but it really isn't until the execution of Cleander that Commodus got a little nuts. Plausibly due to the continual attempts on his life.

Yeah, I do, I just sort of forgot to mention him. Of course I don't really know much about his reign 'cept the Italians were being obnoxious shits and that he died by drowning on his way to the Third Crusade (at least I think it was the Third. Was it?) Unfortunately he loses points in my book because he died in a slightly dumb way. It's really the same reason that Genghis Khan loses points in my book, only with Genghis it's magnified by about a billion (for anyone that does not know, Genghis Khan was finished off by a combination of illness and falling off his horse. Disgraceful for a steppe nomad, who in many cases learned to ride a horse before they could walk.

Realistically, the only reason St. Henry II makes it in there is because he has the same name as me. That automatically gets him past Charles V. And I was sorely tempted to cut out Carolus Magnus, because he wasn't technically Holy Roman Emperor. He was Western Roman Emperor. Ottonius Magnus is actually the first Holy Roman Emperor.

Yeah, it was a pretty pathetic way to die and the whole, preserve him in vinegar didn't work. I always wondered why I'd never read an alternate history scenario where he had lived. Would have changed the 3rd crusade I'm sure. I'm not too well schooled on the Holy Roman Emperors unfortunately, I've mostly a BC kinda guy. There should be a greatest general in antiquity thread while we're at it. heh

Yeah, it was a pretty pathetic way to die and the whole, preserve him in vinegar didn't work. I always wondered why I'd never read an alternate history scenario where he had lived. Would have changed the 3rd crusade I'm sure. I'm not too well schooled on the Holy Roman Emperors unfortunately, I've mostly a BC kinda guy. There should be a greatest general in antiquity thread while we're at it. heh

That's not a bad idea. I might just have to go start one, unless you're going to beat me to it.

My vote goes to Claudius... So I cast "other".

Given the intrigue endemic to the Byzantine court, Justinian was more than entitled to fear Belisarius' motives. There is every likelihood that Belisarius would have accepted the Gothic proposal that he rule Italy before he was withdrawn to fight Sasanian Persia; ambition of this sort emperilled Justinian's position, and was thus justifiably blunted.

Belisarius's campaigns against Sassanid Persia took place before the Italian and African campaigns. That was where he proved his brilliance, after managing to defeat superior Sassanid forces, or being able to conduct difficult maneuvers such as fighting withdrawals when he knew he couldn't win. Justinian's fears also were proven to be unfounded, as Belisarius even aided the emperor in putting down a revolt against him in Constantinople, even after being thrown in prison by the emperor. Yet even after that show of loyalty, Justinian never really trusted him again.

Publius Helvius Pertinax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Helvius_Pertinax).
He reigned 87 days between December 192 AD and March 193.
Plus, his name is awesome.
Try it. Say 'Pertinax'.
Sounds like a 'female hygine' product or something >_>

Realistically, the only reason St. Henry II makes it in there is because he has the same name as me.

Your name is St. Henry Ottonius II?
Sue your parents.