Support NeoGAF

[IDKFA]

EviLore hasn't posted a Roman themed thread in a while, so I thought I would take the mantle and give us all an excuse to think about the Empire.

I came across this piss poor video recently from a "professor". It's one of those shit Wired Ask the Expert videos. Anyway, one of the questions this professor gets is who was the best Roman Emperor, and of course she has to shove her modern view points into it. Take a listen. Time stamped so you don't need to watch the whole thing.



What? Marcus Aurelius wrote a "cute little book"?! No. He didn't write any book. The book we call Meditations is just a collection of his personal philosophical thoughts he wrote down through the years. He wasn't writing a book and had no intention of having his writings published. We collected it all into a book in the modern era.

Nero, the worst Emperor? She does know that Nero's reputation as one of Rome's worst emperors is largely based on historical accounts written by his enemies and successors, right? Was he a great leader? No, but the worst? Worse than Elagabalus and Caligula? I don't think so.

And saying no Emperor was the best because it was an autocratic government is just pure nonsense.

So let's have History Gaf have their say. Who was the best? That's a hard question to answer, but for me it would be Marcus Aurelius.

I might be a little biased as Mediations is one of my favourite books of all time, and this is one of the reasons he is my number 1. Mediations gives us an insight into the mind of the most powerful person on the planet at the time. The mind of Roman Emperor. When we read passages of Mediations, we're going back in time and hearing the echoes of a Roman Emperor who lived almost 2000 years ago. This single collection of works inspired me to study for a history degree, and although my expertise are in 14th/15th century France and England, Roman history will always be a passion of mine thanks to Mediations.

It's not just his writings. Even by Roman standards Aurelius was considered to be a model Emperor. Despite facing numerous challenges, including invasions and internal strife, Aurelius proved to be a capable military commander and a skilled administrator. He successfully defended the empire's borders and maintained stability within. He also strived to ensure the stability of the Empire. He didn't bleed the treasury on vanity projects. He was mindful of the empire's finances and implemented prudent fiscal policies. He avoided excessive spending, ensuring the long-term stability of the Roman economy. Aurelius was also known for his fairness, compassion, and dedication to the public good. He worked tirelessly to ensure justice and prosperity for the Roman Empire. He had all the virtues expected of a Roman Emperor and more.

His life was also marked by tragedy. We don't know for sure how many children he had with Faustina, but we know they had at least 14 and 8 of those died as children, some not even reaching a year old. Losing one child is enough to break even the strongest soul for a lifetime, but it was through Stoic philosophy that Marcus Aurelius found solace and strength in the face of such grief. Maybe he remembered the Greek military leader and philosopher Xenophon, who upon hearing the news his son had died, calmly said, "I knew my son was a mortal."

Hail to the Emperor.

 

[EviLore]

That woman reminds me of a professor (and philosophy department head at a competitive university) I saw do a guest lecture on philosophy somewhere, who claimed that because Aristotle had immoral views on a handful of subjects (by modern-day standards 2400 years later), his entire body of work should be thrown into the trash and not even considered. Plato was okay though, in her eyes, because his views were vaguely more compatible with intersectional feminism. A lot of imbeciles in the humanities at the moment!

Anyway, Marcus Aurelius is up there for me too, in large part because Meditations is brilliant and he performed both great deeds and exercises in restraint and dignity in his term as Emperor. He did misstep majorly by appointing his son Commodus as successor though. While he did try his best to educate and prepare Commodus for leadership, the reign of the Five Good Emperors, which ended with MA's death, was so effective in large part because successors were being chosen on a meritocratic basis instead of by bloodline. Marcus Aurelius ended that run by choosing his biological son and Commodus is generally considered unworthy.

Of the greatest Roman leaders, the discussion should probably include Julius Caesar (which we can exclude here of course), Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Hadrian, Aurelian, and Constantine, at minimum.

 

[Artoris]

probably Augustus

 

[JimmyRustler]

Augustus. Is that even debatable?

 

[Jeff Spicoli]

Traianus. He was the emperor at the absolute peak of Roman Empire.

 

[Hookshot]

Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius went the furthest north

 

[IDKFA]

That woman reminds me of a professor (and philosophy department head at a competitive university) I saw do a guest lecture on philosophy somewhere, who claimed that because Aristotle had immoral views on a handful of subjects (by modern-day standards 2400 years later), his entire body of work should be thrown into the trash and not even considered. Plato was okay though, in her eyes, because his views were vaguely more compatible with intersectional feminism.

This professor sounds clueless. Didn't like Aristotle for having immoral views by modern-day standards, but okay with Plato? The man who justified slavery and considered slaves to be inferior people? lol.

A lot of imbeciles in the humanities at the moment!

Agreed. There is a major problem of trying to judge people from the past with the moral standards of today. Personally, I think it's essential to consider the historical context in which these figures lived. Their actions and beliefs were shaped by the cultural, social, and political norms of their time. Judging them solely by contemporary standards can lead to a distorted view of their lives and contributions.

Anyway, Marcus Aurelius is up there for me too, in large part because Meditations is brilliant and he performed both great deeds and exercises in restraint and dignity in his term as Emperor. He did misstep majorly by appointing his son Commodus as successor though. While he did try his best to educate and prepare Commodus for leadership, the reign of the Five Good Emperors, which ended with MA's death, was so effective in large part because successors were being chosen on a meritocratic basis instead of by bloodline. Marcus Aurelius ended that run by choosing his biological son and Commodus is generally considered unworthy.

Fair point. That is a black mark for Marcus Aurelius. While Marcus Aurelius was a wise and just ruler, Commodus proved to be a tyrannical and incompetent emperor.

It's hard to say why Marcus Aurelius thought his son would be fit to rule. Did Commodus play the part while his father was alive to convince him he was fit to rule? Was it a choice out of political pressure and Marcus Aurelius thought that Commodus would grow into a wise and capable ruler, or was it down to pure limited options? Maybe he felt is was the only way to protect his son, perhaps because if somebody else became Emperor then his would have been killed off as a political rival? I don't think we'll ever know.

Augustus. Is that even debatable?

I think it is debatable.

Augustus effectively established a monarchy, consolidating power in his hands and undermining the republican institutions of Rome. He was also the master of propaganda who carefully crafted his image through public works, art, and literature. As an example, It's because of him that most people think of Cleopatra as a sex crazed, power hungry deceiver who manipulated two of Rome's greatest sons. It's very hard to study the Augustus period because almost every primary source you encounter has to be approached with caution due to this ramped up propaganda.

Although not my pick for number one, he does have my favourite quote from history.

After taking Egypt, Augustus went to visit the tomb of Alexander the Great in Alexandria. After seeing the resting place of Alexander, Augustus was asked if he wanted to see the resting places of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt. His reply:

"My wish was to see a king, not corpses."

Did Suetonius make this up? Maybe, but still, what a bad-ass line. Sigma.

 

[Hookshot]

Roman adjacent, Ptolemy IV Philopator supposedly built the Forty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres which if true was as impressive as it was dumb.

 

[cormack12]

Clearly Caligula

 

[Hookshot]

Clearly Caligula

Also built some excessive boats.

 

[IDKFA]

Also built some excessive boats.

A fan Maritime history?

 

[Laptop1991]

Another vote for Augustus, anyone say Caligula lol. ohh they did! lol

 

[cormack12]

What can I say, guy started off well then thought fuck this shit. We all live our lives like this.

 

[jufonuk]

I mean that was Marcus’ plan for him to become emperor but marcus’ son had other ideas.

 

[EviLore]

Augustus. Is that even debatable?

Constantine's chin has entered the chat

 

[IDKFA]

Constantine's chin has entered the chat

It looks like he has a ball sack for a chin.

I've never noticed it before, but now I can't unsee it.

 

[dispensergoinup]

Starting Meditations right now so good to know our boy MA is considered upper tier.

I'm mostly ignorant when it comes to Roman emperors, to be fair.

 

[West Texas CEO]

the age of true alpha males.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

I’d say Augustus. As an 18yo with Caesar’s heritage and legacy on his shoulders, to not die with a blade between his shoulders within a year of Caesar’s death, the guy must have had balls of kevlar and the most cunning mind. He was a ruthless political genius and transitioned the Republic into a monarchy quite smoothly. He made his missteps, but what he achieved in his long life was beyond any of his successors. Only Constantin the Great carried the empire through comparatively tumultuous times, and had an equally relevant legacy. Hadrian was a great ruler, but he also stayed well away from Rome as much as he could.

Most of the good emperors failed at establishing a good successor, curiously enough. Augustus’s favorite died in a battle. Constantin had three sons, gave them dumb names, and split his legacy between them in a way that could never lead to any good. Marcus Aurelius left the empire to, well, Commodus. Trajan to Hadrian was unquestionably the best transition of power in the history of the empire.

 

[West Texas CEO]

I may be a little biased due to my Christianity, but of course it's Constantine for me.

EviLore , I assume you are secular, though.

What makes you include Constantine into the discussion?

 

[Donald mac Ronald]

The guy who was a simple farmer. Became emperor, saved Rome and gave power back to the people .

 

[IDKFA]

I mean that was Marcus’ plan for him to become emperor but marcus’ son had other ideas.

Yes, in the history of the world according to Ridley Scott.

 

[bitbydeath]

Edit: Augustus.
Thought this said worst.

 

[IDKFA]

Nepos, he was technically the last emperor.

Western half of the Empire, sure.

Constantine XI was, IMO, the last Roman Emperor, who died in 1453.

It's actually crazy to think The Roman Empire lasted almost 1500 years!

 

[bitbydeath]

Western half of the Empire, sure.

Constantine XI was, IMO, the last Roman Emperor, who died in 1453.

It's actually crazy to think The Roman Empire lasted almost 1500 years!

I read this as worst.
Whoops!

 

[EviLore]

I may be a little biased due to my Christianity, but of course it's Constantine for me.

EviLore , I assume you are secular, though.

What makes you include Constantine into the discussion?

I’m not religious, yes, but Constantine is clearly a great figure either way.

Let's consider the lead-up to his rule. The Empire was in bad shape, rallied together by Aurelian, who made Sol Invictus the official quasi-monotheistic deity of the Roman Empire. Ideological unity was becoming increasingly necessary. But Christianity was growing in popularity and this was leading to internal strife, persecution of Christians, etc. Constantine adopted Christianity and unified the empire under a stronger faith while resolving the persecution and creating new domains of power and authority via the church. He also put forward many reforms internally, like creating a new currency, the Solidus, which addressed inflation, and modernized the taxation system, etc.

He founded Constantinople, which preserved the Roman Empire in the East for another thousand years. Constantinople housed a great deal of precious knowledge from antiquity, much of which would've been lost forever after the fall of Rome if not for Constantine creating the new capital in a perfectly defensible location. We wouldn't have the modern world as we know it without that knowledge being reintroduced to Europe after the fall of Constantinople, which directly led to the Renaissance.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

And without Constantinople you don't get Istanbul and thus this banger

 

[jufonuk]

Marcus Aurelius is know it’s cliche but he wrote meditations. Which is huge. Imagine a world leader today doing this.

 

[FunkMiller]

Sean Connery.

Sorry… I mean Augustus.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Western half of the Empire, sure.

Constantine XI was, IMO, the last Roman Emperor, who died in 1453.

It's actually crazy to think The Roman Empire lasted almost 1500 years!

In a way, the Roman Empire lasted much longer, seeing that the Roman Church is basically a continuation of it in everything but political unity and military power. The language, the knowledge, the spirit and the debauchery of Rome would have gone almost completely lost if the Church didn’t hold as much relevance as it did already by the time the Western Empire fell. Abbeys and monasteries preserved the books and a lot of Roman spiritual values, while the Church of Rome… well, let’s just consider than the Pope was for all intents and purposes a king until 1870, and many popes did stuff that would have made Caligula blush.

 

[mitch1971]

I put my money on Biggus Dickus.

 

[pauljeremiah]

Vespasian, the Emperor who brought stability after The Year of Four Emperors after the Julio-Claudian Dynasty collapsed after the death of Nero, started the Flavian Dynasty. His fiscal reforms and consolidation of the empire made his reign a period of political stability and funded a vast Roman building program that included the Temple of Peace, the Colosseum, and the restoration of the capitol.

 

[AJUMP23]

I Would say it is Octavian, Marcus Aurelius, Diocletian or Constantine.

Octavian Transitioned the empire from a Republic to an empire, and beat Marc Antony in a Civil War.

Marcus Aurelius - Was always loved and expanded the empire to its greatest reaches

Diocletian - rose from a commoner to become emperor and saved the empire from corruption, set up a triumverent type of managerial system and then retired to the Dalmatian coast.

Constantine - Saved the empire, moved it out of Rome to get rid of the corruption and became Christian.

 

[Hookshot]

A fan Maritime history?

To some extent, but outside of the World Wars and The Spanish Armada it doesn't really ever come up.

Antony and Cleopatra are world famous but who ever hears of the Battle of Actium? Antony was on a pretty long losing streak but a more Egyptian influenced Roman empire could maybe have happened if it had gone differently there.

 

[AJUMP23]

I put my money on Biggus Dickus.

Never an emperor, just a trusted friend.

 

[jason10mm]

Augustus effectively established a monarchy, consolidating power in his hands and undermining the republican institutions of Rome. He was also the master of propaganda who carefully crafted his image through public works, art, and literature. As an example, It's because of him that most people think of Cleopatra as a sex crazed, power hungry deceiver who manipulated two of Rome's greatest sons. It's very hard to study the Augustus period because almost every primary source you encounter has to be approached with caution due to this ramped up propaganda.

I think it's AMAZING that even with the comparative wealth of writing we have from this period it's still possible to be swayed by propaganda. Then I think about the time periods were all we know is from 2 lines in a chronicle written 300 years later, a couple of coins with ambiguous place names and the face of a king, and scraps of lore teased out of folk songs. Wild.

 

[IDKFA]

In a way, the Roman Empire lasted much longer, seeing that the Roman Church is basically a continuation of it in everything but political unity and military power. The language, the knowledge, the spirit and the debauchery of Rome would have gone almost completely lost if the Church didn’t hold as much relevance as it did already by the time the Western Empire fell. Abbeys and monasteries preserved the books and a lot of Roman spiritual values, while the Church of Rome… well, let’s just consider than the Pope was for all intents and purposes a king until 1870, and many popes did stuff that would have made Caligula blush.

An interesting take.

Could there also be an argument for the Orthodox Church? That Church remained in the last surviving part of the Roman Empire after the schism of 1054?

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Vespasian, the Emperor who brought stability after The Year of Four Emperors after the Julio-Claudian Dynasty collapsed after the death of Nero, started the Flavian Dynasty. His fiscal reforms and consolidation of the empire made his reign a period of political stability and funded a vast Roman building program that included the Temple of Peace, the Colosseum, and the restoration of the capitol.

He also introduced a fee to access public urinals.

 

[West Texas CEO]

He also introduced a fee to access public urinals.

Not a good situation for those Romans who were piss poor.

 

[pauljeremiah]

He also introduced a fee to access public urinals.

 

[Paasei]

This is interesting. I’m quite the history but never fully explored the Romans just yet. Mostly spending time with 13th to 17th century.

Any good documentary recommendations? Preferably without interviews of professors. Just a good voice over that talks until the end.

 

[IDKFA]

This is interesting. I’m quite the history but never fully explored the Romans just yet. Mostly spending time with 13th to 17th century.

Any good documentary recommendations? Preferably without interviews of professors. Just a good voice over that talks until the end.

I got you.



Professor Mary Beard might look like a crazy cat lady, but she knows her shit when it comes to ancient Rome.

 

[sisyphus8]

This is interesting. I’m quite the history but never fully explored the Romans just yet. Mostly spending time with 13th to 17th century.

Any good documentary recommendations? Preferably without interviews of professors. Just a good voice over that talks until the end.

The History of Rome Podcast by Mike Duncan. He starts off from the prehistory of Rome up to the fall of the Western Empire.

Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast had a series about the fall of the Republic. Also, if you like a bit of humour, the Oversimplified channel on YouTube is in the middle of the second punic war, having already covered the first punic war before.

You gotta be patient though, both these guys take a lot of time to produce an episode but when they do, I drop everything and listen/watch them.

Anyway, my vote goes for Augustus as the og. and the best emperor. Came from nowhere, thrust into the spotlight when named Caesar's heir and deftly navigated the post-Caesar chaos to establish what became an Empire.

Marcus Aurelius always loses a mark for naming Commodas as heir.

Aurelian was taken too soon.

For me Diocletian split the Empire that led to the decline of the west.

Constantine made Christianity the defacto religion. Or at least, gave it an in. May have happened anyway though. happened anyway.

 

[moxing]

Nobody's said Justinian yet? He was such a neat guy. Really revved the engines on Byzantium, got the coolest building in Istanbul built, and if you're into the whole Christianity thing, his book of laws in particular assured the free practice of that religion. Sure, his administration oversaw one of the craziest sports riots in history until the Eagles came along, but I kind of treat that as an achievement, too. Got his public extremely involved in the political process. Maybe a little too involved?

If we're talking greatest ever, I love the guy. Measuring him up against other greats, I don't know- but I wanted to throw a hat in the ring for him.

 

[sisyphus8]

Nobody's said Justinian yet? He was such a neat guy. Really revved the engines on Byzantium, got the coolest building in Istanbul built, and if you're into the whole Christianity thing, his book of laws in particular assured the free practice of that religion. Sure, his administration oversaw one of the craziest sports riots in history until the Eagles came along, but I kind of treat that as an achievement, too. Got his public extremely involved in the political process. Maybe a little too involved?

If we're talking greatest ever, I love the guy. Measuring him up against other greats, I don't know- but I wanted to throw a hat in the ring for him.

Yeah, Justinian is a great shout if you'reincludingthe Byzantine Emperors (I guess you should as they considered themselves Roman). He'd be my second next to Augustus. His work on law is the basic framework a lot of modern law is based around. Also came close to restoring the Western Empire.

 

[Tams]

...

 

[Tams]

Augustus was quite clearly the greatest due to what he was up against.

I'm partial to Hadrian though, even if he did more consolidation than anything else, but he did that with aplomb.

Though Trajan was great too, as the Empire expanded the most under him, with some great victories, and he greatly improved the lives of Roman citizens.

I don't agree with those using an emperor being Christian as a tick for them being the greatest. That's just personal bias. Objectively, it's at best a moderate positive, and only because it was them going with the flow and times.

 

[Donald mac Ronald]

The guy who was a simple farmer. Became emperor, saved Rome and gave power back to the people .

Cincinnatus

Didn't see him mentioned. Was very early in Rome history.

 

[thegame983]

I'll be boring and say Augustus. He's not only the greatest Roman Emperor, but probably in the top 5 most influential and important people of all time.

I like the fact that he wasn't a even a good warrior or military mind. He was a ruthless politician and who overcame overwhelming odds and turned the tables on much more experienced men.

And when the dust had settled he led Rome into on of her most prosperous eras.

 

[MilkyJoe]

I put my money on Biggus Dickus.

He has a wife, you know...


In what universe are we living where a mod hasn't changed the title of this thread to

Who was the gweatest Woman Empewor?​