Full Version: the greatest emperor
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
in your opinion who was rome's most greatest emperor and why
Maybe Trajan, if we look at his military achievements and I think there is a wide consensus to support his claim. Also roman army was perhaps at it`s peak at this time...

Just now I feel deep sympathy for Julian the apostate, mainly because of his deeply tragic figure (usually it has been Marcus Aurelius). It can be also because I am reading once again Gore Vidal`s "Julian" :wink: ...

Then there is always TARASICODISSA RUSUMBLADEOTUS Big Grin !!!
I would have to say Aurelian. What he managed to achieve in only 5 years is nothing short of staggering. Without him there would have been no Diocletian or Constantine.

It depends on the criterions. As founder of the empire, Augustus has no rival at all, although the triad Aurelian/Diocletian/Constantine ranks high as well.

For human greatness: Marcus Aurelius.

For being capable and having a very bad press, people like Tiberius, Vitellius, Domitian.

I've always appreciated Septimius Severus.
I like Hadrian and Trajan as well. They had both military achievements, and growth of the Empire. I also respect Septimius Severus.

According to Eutropius's 4th-century Breviarium (8.5.3), new emperors were greeted with the hope that they be felicior Augusto, melior Traiano, that is, "Luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan."
i'll also go for Aurelian.
Septimius Severus. :lol:
He defeated Didius Iulianus, Niger, and Clodius Albinus. He also was Parthicus Maximus. He was for 18 years emperor!

Aurelian was also a big emperor.
Probably Augustus; he ended the chaos of the civil wars, created a stable regime and restored the prosperity. Or maybe Julian by being such a tragic figure.
Many were the great roman emperors, and I love them and the full glory days they rode till about the first part of the III century, though I'm tempted to accord my "preference" (simpathy?) to emperors that even if had to manage enormous troubles in the decadence and fall of the real roman Spirit and Empire, had at the same a fortitude and courage out of the common way, that allowed them to hold up the Empire in any case. So I feeel to admire them more.

Aurelianus, Diocletianus and, of course, Iulianus, maybe the best to me: he had to do the lot he did totally upstream and in so few time, with enemies everywhere, just stopped by "friend fire" during a victorious battle... IULIANE VIVAS! SOLI INVICTO!


P.S. Anyway, exists the possibility that the "classic" emperors were so good that simply did not allow to the problems to arise... :wink:
IN terms of military greatness it'd have to be Aurelian, obviously. Trajan did what he did from a position of military superiority, as did Augustus, who conquered more territory. In terms of political skill and vision, Augustus springs to mind, followed by the tetrarchs. But my personal favourite is Vespasian, the unassuming, competent man for the tough, thankless jobs.
Vespasian for me. From comparatively humble beginnings, born in the same year as the Varrian disaster, surviving both Caligula, as aedile and praetor, and Nero (even though he was banished for falling asleep during one of that psychotic's poetry readings).

His roots are interesting, given that his father was a tax collector in Asia, with a statue devoted to him bearing the inscription, 'To an Honest Tax-gatherer.'

Even though it was unworthy for someone of senatorial rank to marry a freed slave, after his first wife died just before his succession he returned to his mistress, once a slave.

One of the most consistently successful military men in the history of Rome IMHO, in Britain he had one-quarter of the Roman force under his command, and took three-quarters of the intended territory. When Nero sent him to subdue Galilee he did so in just a few months, and then in 69 decided to act quickly to contend for the position of Emperor once Galba was dead. It is testament to his reputation that the Syrian contingent of three legions opted for Vespasian then, because of his record, prompting more allegiance from other legions. It was after his succession that he managed to turn around the wastes of Nero, and the effects of civil war, and bring stability to the Empire.

Not particularly religious, on his deathbed he showed a sense of irony, "Woe is me, I think I am turning into a god."
Vespasian -- for all of the many reasons mentioned above.

Vir militaris, provider of good government and stability.

A Soldier's Soldier.
Augustus. Very clever,shrewd.Brought the crumbling republic to an Empire. Great improvements to the glory of the city.(paraphrase)" Came to a city of brick and left it a city of marble". Financed many reforms personnally and incredibly lived to be an old man dying of natural causes.
Well it has to be Augustus.

If you had seen the three members of the second triumvirate together, Lepidus, Anthony and Octavian, you wouldn't have ever picked pencil necked octavian as the 300 lb gorilla.

It's not just that he was so clever he was a study in contrasts. Personally unassuming and humble, modest in dress and means, but politically ruthless and without peer.

Yep, gotta be Augustus.

Close seconds are Vespasian, for similar reasons.

Trajan, a genuinely decent person and loved by all.

And Constantine, the second most important after Augustus.

M. Aurelius is loved for his philosophy and military battles, and Hadrian for his artistic achievements as well.

Gotta give a shout out to the Byzantines.

Justinian and Heraclius.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5