Greatest Roman

[Anonymous]

This is a post that I put in another site a while back and got a lot of interesting responses. To make things interesting, please do not choose Gaius Julius Caesar.<br>
<br>
My choice would be Augustus Caesar. He got the empire off to the right start and led rome in the pax romano age of great emperors. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Diocletian perhaps ?<br>
<br>
Julian as a second<br>
<br>
And ... Majorian as a far-fetched third <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Civettone, are you a Late Roman?<br>
<br>
Why not Constantine or Theodosius?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus]

I am not doubting Constantine as having an important role in history, or doubting his greatness, his decision to embrace christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire changed history forever. However I don't think he did the empire a lot of good by both making christianity the official religion and by moving the capital. Yes the capital city was starting to fall apart, but moving the empires center away from Rome was not helping it at all. Rome was the center of the empire since the days of the republic, and yes it was an empire even though the government was yet not headed by an emperor. Although the decisions of Constantine were not good for what would become the western roman empire, if those decisions were not made, then the world today would be totally different. <p></p><i></i>

[L C Cinna]

hmmm, there are many great Romans. My personal favourite would have been Germanicus. That's rather a "what if" case, but he would have had the potential to change the whole history of the Roman empire, imho. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I'm not so sure that Constantine's moving the capital was such a bad thing. One could argue that Constantinople's more strategic location and greater defensibility helped to save the Eastern half of an empire that would likely have suffered the same fate in the West even without the moving of the capital.<br>
<br>
I'm also not sure whether "making Christianity the official religion of the empire" is exactly what he did. Remember, the Edict of Milan only instituted tolerance, and he was only baptized at the end of his life. I seem to remember that he sort of walked a more fine line than that, and while he did seem to begin showing favor to Christianity, I don't think that he actually began persecuting pagans. (On the other hand, he did preside over one of those ecumenical councils; it was Nicea, wasn't it?) Anyway, I seem to remember the picture being less black and white and more in shades of gray than that.<br>
<br>
Oh, and I'd have to agree with Augustine, with maybe Constantine and/or Diocletian coming in second.<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i></i>

[Quintius Clavus]

Like Pompeius Magnus, I have to go with Augustus as the greatest Roman. He brought a much needed stability to a Roman world exhausted by civil war. Due to his own genius and/or his ability, realizing that not all the ideas were his, to listen to his advisors, he was able, using their advise and help, to bring order out of the chaos. He managed to still maintain some "fiction" of a continuation of key Roman institutions. There is so very much that he organized, set on a firm footing, etc., including our own favorite, the Roman Army. His long life, I am sure, helped enormously. Thus the passage of time allowed things to take hold and become habitual. I think his successors for many many years acknowledged that they lived under his shadow.<br>
I would place Diocletian near the top, probably at number 2-because, like Augustus, he brought a much needed stability to the empire after some fifty or so years of ever constant changes in rulers and wars. He also gets credit for reorganizing things, possibly/probably including the army. His colleague in the western end of the empire existed in Diocletian's shadow.<br>
And a note on Constantine. I have to agree that he granted official Tolerance to Christianity, but by no means made it the official religion. He still maintained "more than a foot in the polytheistic camp." I possess a coin of Constantine, which on the reverse has an image and inscription to Sol Invictus, a very popular pagan diety during that era. I think he finally accepted baptism on his deathbed because he very much feared death and was hedging his bets He had done some conceivably wicked things in his lifetime, for which he might be punished in an afterlife, and he may have become convinced that the Christians' god would be the one to punish him. Those wicked things included the killing of his wife and his son, which I believe he later regretted, especially his son's death.<br>
<br>
Marcus Quintius Clavus <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

It's good to know that someone else's impression jives w/ mine. I have to admit that my own impression of Constantine and his (somewhat equivocal) relationship to Christianity derives primarily from Norwich's history, which I admit is not necessarily the latest research on the subject. (But we can't be fully up-to-date on every subject, can we?) If this impression doesn't fit the facts and there are any Byzantine scholars out there who can correct this impression with hard data, I would be interested (even feel indebted to you) if you would get me up to speed. (I got stuck with the task last year of doing Medieval History [9th grade] this year, though it is my weakest period of history; unfortunately, since I've had 7 completely different classes to deal with, 4.5 of which were brand new to me, I just haven't had time to read up on any of them like I'd have liked to have.)<br>
<br>
I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here, and say that I think this Christianity-becoming-the-official-religion-of-the-empire has less to do with the actions of any single man and more to do with the "internal logic" of what I call an "absolutist culture," which I define as a culture dominated by the control of a single individual and/ or a "cult of personality." I see a general trend toward a sort of theocratic tendency in such societies, as the dominating ruler seeks to put all spheres of society (including religion) under him. In the early empire, it was obviously enough to make others "offer to the genius of Caesar," which, in effect, was an attempt to deify the emperor.<br>
<br>
As Christianity took hold more and more on the popular culture, the persecution became worse, as the conflict between those who were willing to deify Caesar and those who weren't became more and more important. Finally, the #'s of such people reached such proportions, eventually, that persecuting them must have seemed counter-productive to those of a pragmatic mindset; but at some point, surely an alternative must have presented itself...<br>
<br>
Instead of deifying Caesar, perhaps Caesar could convince his subjects that he ruled by divine right...<br>
<br>
The evidence doesn't seem clear to me that Constantine himself came up with this idea. (At least, he never consistently forwarded it as far as I know in my limited knowledge), but the development makes sense and fits perfectly within the "internal logic" of an absolutist system. A true tyrant loves to dominate all aspects of life and if he can make use of the "one God/ one ruler" paradigm, take advantage of a societal trend toward monotheism to support their absolute rule... such a thing would make eminent sense. I just don't know of any specific ruler who we have clear evidence of musing aloud in such a way, and I suspect that it happened almost by accident, so to speak, until many years later the Byzantine emperors figured out how to bring all these elements together.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I suppose this is somewhat tangential, but I have come to the conclusion, after many years of studying radically different types of culture, that different "types" of society (e.g. "absolutist," "aristocratic," "civic," etc.) have different types of "internal logic" and that understanding this sort of internal logic can help us better understand the kinds of tension either within a culture or between different types of culture.<br>
<br>
And I think that the type of absolutist culture that Rome had evolved into was just begging for some sort of theocratic ideological underpinning. Once it was clear that too few people were still willing to buy into the whole "Caesar-as-divine" thing (which makes sense, after so many years of societal disaster the idea of the "divine Caesar" must have seemed to be ridiculous to many), the next logical thing was for the "Caesar-as-Divine-representative" thing to be tried...<br>
<br>
I just don't think that there's any clear evidence that it was Constantine himself to come up with such an idea, at least not in a clear formulation...<br>
<br>
Perhaps he pushed such a trend forward, but I don't see much evidence that it was by design on his part.<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The greatest Roman?<br>
The Roman People. As in "We the People".<br>
The SPQR acronym is overlooked. For the first time a political entity was created, not by the will of a single king, but through the efforts of "The Senate AND the People".<br>
And that is the greatest thing. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

You know, I like that answer, Antonius. I've never been a big fan of the "Great Man" theory of history<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Thank you Aaron<br>
If I followed the "great man" theory though, I'd say Romulus, or whatever his name was. The one that built the first rampart and set up the first altar on the Palatine hill. The founder. <p></p><i></i>

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

<br>
<br>
Right, the "greatest" theory is illusory, even because "Fortuna" (Luck) has great part in the glory of a man and decides too much about his destiny. Take Iulianus, for example, was he the greatest? If that javelin did not hit him? The premises of a "great" man there were all, but so few years of rule, even if extraordinary...<br>
<br>
Diocletianus gets several of my votes too.<br>
<br>
Iulius Caesar was totally incredible, sure, but so lucky (except for his stabbing, of course...) and so great advertiser of himself (anyone who reads "De Bello Gallico" is obviously and generally fascinated, one of the best adventure story in the world! Even due to his "understated" way of telling).<br>
<br>
As Antoninus says Romulus and the People of Roma has to be considered a step beyond and this is an our (Romans of all the World) tradition matter too. It's a question of Love... Not only an "otaku".<br>
<br>
Ah, to avoid any rumbles, I get stick to the ancients only .<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Titus<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus]

The greatest man question is not a theory in my purpose for posting it, but to simply open up the mind and get people to think about comparing different people throughout the times of rome. My intention is not to prove a point, in the case of a theory, but to ask an interesting question that I have been thinking about, and would like to know how others think. If it evolves into a what if question than the thread should just end, because, as i have said as well as others, that that bring us to an area of confusion I do not care to go to. Maybe you could clarify to me a little bit more about what you mean by the greatest man theory. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Ken, if you thought I was implying that you were supporting a "Great Man Theory." It wasn't my intention to make such a presumption. And I do think that individuals can make a dramatic impact on history from time to time. There are (or at least were; I don't think it's a popular approach among modern historians) people who do carry this too far and essentially make all history into a serial biography of the "Great Men." And I think such an approach goes too far, as there are impersonal forces that move history as well. I often like to think of some of the key things to keep in mind as being a triad of <strong>individuals</strong>, <strong>ideas</strong> and <strong>institutions</strong>. (Since, helpfully, they all begin with "i," I sometimes call it my "I triad." ) I try to take into account key developments in all three areas, and try to get my students to think in such a fashion as well. (Not that this is meant to be definitive or exhaustive; others could no doubt come up with other equally valid approaches; nevertheless, I've found this to often be a helpful way to get a balanced look at both the personal and impersonal forces at work.)<br>
<br>
So anyway, I hope this clears it up for you. My statement about Great Man theories wasn't targeted against anyone in particular, but rather in support of an interesting response from a different angle I hadn't thought of myself.<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aglarsen>AGLarsen</A> at: 6/2/04 2:23 am<br></i>

[Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus]

Don't worry about it, I wasn't targeting anyone with my statement. I just don't wan't people thinking that my purpose of these posts is to force a hidden theory on people. If I have a theory, of which I only have two, my peloponessian and christianity thoeries, I always write theory behind them. This is a topic to more get opinions on different romans, as different people have studyed different people to a greater depth, or purhaps favor different romans, thats all. <p></p><i></i>