Underrated emperors

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

1) Were there any good Roman emperors who never got the credit they deserved?

2) Were there any so-called "bad" Roman emperors who actually did a decent job but had their reputations tarnished unfairly?

[Theodosius the Great]

1) Were there any good Roman emperors who never got the credit they deserved?

Can you please refine this question ? Credit from whom ? Moderns or ancients ? Do you mean emperors who never got the credit in their own lifetimes or do you mean in posterity's eyes ? Because I think Claudius received little credit during his reign or even long afterward until his reputation was successfully rehabilatated in modern times. Or at least he is an example of someone who enjoys much higher regard in modern times than in antiquity. Julian may be another example of this. Even Julius Caesar falls into this category but he wasn't emperor.

~Theo

[Eleatic Guest]

Aurelian's reputation should be upgraded by another notch, because he put the empire again on its feet within five years. His murder was a tragedy, an act of complete senselessness.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Can you please refine this question ? Credit from whom ? Moderns or ancients ? Do you mean emperors who never got the credit in their own lifetimes or do you mean in posterity's eyes ?

Well, both are relevant. I'm interested in emperors whose reputations were successfully rehabilitated and also those who still don't get the credit they deserve.

It's tough for me to judge because I'm new to a lot of this material, so I don't know how much credit these rulers get in academic circles.
Someone who doesn't seem prominent to me might actually be prominent in other people's eyes.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Aurelian's reputation should be upgraded by another notch, because he put the empire again on its feet within five years. His murder was a tragedy, an act of complete senselessness.

Here's a good example; I've read about Aurelian, and his record speaks for itself. It seems that he was a workaholic and a very successful general.

But I don't know if he gets the credit that I think he deserves in academic circles. If he does, it wouldn't make sense for me to call him an "underrated emperor."

The same goes for Gallienus. I hadn't heard of Gallienus until I stumbled across him recently, but then I read about his achievements and compared them to those of the other 3rd century AD emperors, and he really stands out.

[Theodosius the Great]

Gratias, Justin.

For question one I'd say : Domitian.

Question two : Tiberius, Galba, and maybe Severus Alexander

Domitian was among the most conscientious emperors when it came to maintaining the state treasury's solvency by maintaining and even increasing the silver content in the state coinage, not to mention keeping state spending under control. He also established and maintained excellent relations with the army while simultaneously engaging in numerous campaigns to stablize the Rhine and Danube. These are rare achievements to find in any one emperor.

Tiberius successfully transitioned the goverment of Augustus into a permanent establishment that would continue for over a thousand years. Most of Augustus' policies were intact throughout Tiberius' long reign. If he failed to make Augustus' personal rearrangement of the Republic into a one-man-rule civil war may have ensued without any hope of reestablishing Roman rule to it's full capacity.

Galba had many admirable qualities but seems to have been easily led by his inner circle. By standing up to the Praetorians he showed courage and resolve but was assasinated for doing so.

Severus Alexander reminds me of Gratian except that the latter's reputation did not suffer. Alexander certainly wasn't a bad emperor but he was born in the wrong time when the empire needed someone with military ability, IMO.

~Theo

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Thanks Theo.

Domitian was among the most conscientious emperors when it came to maintaining the state treasury's solvency by maintaining and even increasing the silver content in the state coinage, not to mention keeping state spending under control. He also established and maintained excellent relations with the army while simultaneously engaging in numerous campaigns to stablize the Rhine and Danube. These are rare achievements to find in any one emperor.

I agree that Domitian isn't as bad as some make him out to be. I think a big problem for his reputation was his handling of Dacia. A standard was lost on his watch (not by him, but the buck stops with the emperor), and the treaty he established with the Dacia was violated by the Dacian king a few years later.
Combine that with the overwhelming success Trajan had in Dacia a few years later, and you have the perfect reputation-damaging storm for Domitian, regardless of his other accomplishments.

[Epictetus]

I believe Lucius Verus is underrated. He is very understandably overshadowed by his colleague in the purple, Marcus Aurelius, but who wouldn’t be?

Here are some reasons why I look on Lucius Verus with a bit more kindly light:

Military skill
I sometimes wonder about what the Historia Augusta says about his skills as a general. Dio even says he was “better suited for military enterprise” than Marcus.

I think it interesting that Lucius Verus was the first to address the troops after the death of Antonius Pius. This was an extremely important act, because the loyalty of the troops was paramount.

I also think it significant that he was the one to go to the Parthian war. The Historia Augusta paints a very nasty picture, but the letters of Fronto are completely different. In private letters between Fronto and Marcus, Fronto mentions Verus’ “great exploits” in the war. This was private correspondence about source materials to be used in a history of the war, and there was no reason for the two to not speak the truth.

Another letter from Lucius to Fronto says that “anxieties made me completely miserable day and night.” It seems clear that he was not busy feasting with actors, but was seriously worried about his responsibilities as a general.

I think it entirely likely that Lucius Verus took his military duties seriously. He took his other duties seriously, why not his role as a general?

Rhetorical ability
Lucius Verus was an accomplished speaker and speech-writer. This may seem inconsequential to us, but rhetoric was extremely important for Roman politicians. There are letters between Fronto and Marcus where they marvel at how he was able to put together a masterful speech in a very short period of time.

Domestic legislation
There is a great amount of excellent legislation credited to the early reign of Marcus and Verus. Typically, these are only credited to Marcus. I think it extremely likely that Lucius Verus had something to do with some of these acts.

Personal character
While the Historia Augusta is quick to point out rumours and faults, there are also a number of good character traits mentioned. Both emperors are credited with allowing criticism. Both are also credited with helping the poor and suffering with personal funds.

Understood his role
Perhaps most importantly, Lucius Verus understood what his role was. He was loyal, and never seemed to try to usurp Marcus Aurelius. I think this is very important. If other co-emperors had understood and accepted sometimes-subordinate stations, the Empire would have had a happier life. There is a letter of Lucius Verus to Fronto where he actually joked about being ignored by the teacher in favour of Marcus. This was an emperor who supported his senior colleague, and this was an important part to play.

So in summary: no, I don’t think Lucius Verus was a perfect emperor. But I do think his contributions should be rehabilitated.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Thanks David... good thought-provoking response.

Rhetorical ability
Lucius Verus was an accomplished speaker and speech-writer. This may seem inconsequential to us, but rhetoric was extremely important for Roman politicians. There are letters between Fronto and Marcus where they marvel at how he was able to put together a masterful speech in a very short period of time.

There is something to be said for this, in the past and today. It's one thing to have all the correct ideas in one's head; it's quite another thing to persuade others to agree.
I think this is one of the factors that allowed Octavian to gain the upper hand over Marc Antony; both could be ruthless, demanding and tyrannical at times, but Octavian actually understood how to use communication to control how he was perceived in the eyes of the public and the Senate.
Some people will always say "words are just words," but the ability to choose them carefully can be a useful tool for governance.

Galba had many admirable qualities but seems to have been easily led by his inner circle. By standing up to the Praetorians he showed courage and resolve but was assasinated for doing so.

Galba makes me smile but only because he's Rome's William Henry Harrison.

[Epictetus]

There is something to be said for this, in the past and today. It's one thing to have all the correct ideas in one's head; it's quite another thing to persuade others to agree.
I think this is one of the factors that allowed Octavian to gain the upper hand over Marc Antony; both could be ruthless, demanding and tyrannical at times, but Octavian actually understood how to use communication to control how he was perceived in the eyes of the public and the Senate.
Some people will always say "words are just words," but the ability to choose them carefully can be a useful tool for governance.

Indeed. Cicero's rhetoric cost him his head.

[Theodosius the Great]

I agree that Domitian isn't as bad as some make him out to be. I think a big problem for his reputation was his handling of Dacia. A standard was lost on his watch

And his Praetorian Prefect was killed as well, IIRC. I think Dacia would have been conquered by Domitian in time. He was just trying to manage the wars on both the Rhine and Danube. But, like you said, it looked shameful to buy off Decebalus to many at the time when a more urgent situation called away the emperor's attention from Dacia.

Galba makes me smile but only because he's Rome's William Henry Harrison.

Hehe, well, the first of many :wink:

~Theo