Most OVERrated Imperator

[Timianus]

To tag-team with "The Most Underrated Emporer" Thread, who, in your opinion has been the most overrated Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus?

I reserve my comendation for the two late "great" emporers, Constantinianus and Theodisius, whom I believe did more damage (esp. in the case of Theodisius) than good to the Empire. Theodisius I blame for being an incompetent commander, wasting away what was left of the roman army and "closing the western mind." As to Constantine, the bottom line was that the man was a usurper, who happened to be a great commander and politician, and eventually made it to the top. I also place some serious blame on him for depleting the military resoruces of the empire. I also don;t think his decisions to quarter the field armies in cities has been given sufficient critical examination.

I also tend to believe that Diocletian is overrated to the extent that the conventional view is that his Tetrarchy was devised as some form of "master plan." I believe it was much more of a realistic power sharing arrangement amoung the leading generals who realized they had more to gain by "dividing the spoils" then fighting over them. I think there are some serious questions as to the extent to which his "force of personality" was as great as usually stated, given the undue influence Galerius seemed to have, especially in the choice of succession when he "voluntarily" abdicated. I am not saying that Diocletian was not a major influence and and great source of stability for the later empire. I just think that the books tends to oversimplify things in the way the Tetrarchy is generally portrayed.

[AMELIANVS]

the books tends to oversimplify things in the way the Tetrarchy is generally portrayed.

As well as single persons Tim.

I don't understand that line with "Caesar Divi Filius Augustus".
Some voting had proclaimed that Augustus is the most the most overrated Emperor?that would be a curious result in my opinion :wink:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I think Constantine fits the bill.

[AMELIANVS]

But if question is who I consider to be the most overrated Emperor I will say:TRAJANUS :whistle:

[Alexand96]

But if question is who I consider to be the most overrated Emperor I will say:TRAJANUS :whistle:

Really, why so?

For overrated, I think Augustus is an interesting option. In his youth, it is true that he is courageous, bold, and successful (at least from a political perspective), despite the fact that he didn't even grow up in Rome, where the action was. However, from a military perspective, he has always seemed weak....propped up by the victories of others (Hirtius, Pansa, Agrippa). But after the wars with Antony were over, who was there left in Rome to oppose him? What did he really do besides consolidate both political and military power with the aid of his inherited name, and past military victories (which weren't really his own to begin with)? Although the debate still rages on this, is it not most likely that Augustus really was the emperor who oversaw the defeat of Varus - the defeat that "stopped Rome" as they say?

Never been a big fan.

[AMELIANVS]

I would never placed Trajanus over Augustus because in my opinion it is Augustus who is greatest ruler Roman state ever had.I think majority of people are fascinated with Trajan simply because of famous column and that they learned from majority of sources that it was during Trajan that Empire was in its territorial peak.

But I can paraphrase you Alexander-What Trajan did except empty military adventures and short-lived conquest?
Augustus on the other hand is totally defining person for what Roman empire means and for all of its remaining history,someone who created most of those things now considered as typical for Roman Emperors and whos legacy is so far reaching.If there was not Augustus at the creation of the Empire it would likely look very differently but if there never was Trajan on the throne probably nothing would considerably changed in general outcome for the Empire.

It was also during Augustus reign Rome saw greatest territorial expansion and it does not take nothing from his credit if it was not him who would personally led all military campaigns.
It is rather a sign of reasonable person that he left waging of wars in the hands of militarily more talented associates than to necessarily undertaking it by himself while knowing he is not so good as military commander.To admit himself his own limits rather than arrogantly ignoring them and to choose instead capable co workers who could conduct certain tasks much better than he could is other sign of greatness not really weakness.Sure he done bad decision sometimes(Varus)but who not?

In short:Trajan is in my view too much overestimated in popular image for his military campaigns which in fact gave little long lasting legacy to Rome(and these campaigns were moreover from great part waged also by Trajans legates not solely by him).

Augustus created Roman empire Trajan only ruled it and he ruled it with bigger resources than Augustus ever had and in much more stabile times.

And I always criticized that the defeat that "stopped Rome" theory -it did not.

P.S:I consider Trajan as one of the best Roman Emperors and I know well he had many virtues and was holder of "best Emperor title"given by the senatorial nobility he seems to be also personaly more sympathetic person than cold hearted arogant and merciless Augustus yet it does not make him better Emperor in my view.

[Nathan Ross]

Constantine... was a usurper, who happened to be a great commander and politician, and eventually made it to the top.

If he was 'a great commander and politician', why was he 'overrated'?

Many succesful emperors gained power through force, and Constantine's claim was better than most. He went on to reign for thirty years, reestablished peace on the frontiers, refortified the Rhine and Danube, reconstructed the Roman army, state and religion, establishing the major structures of the later Roman empire. He also founded Constantinople, which went on the become the most important city in the world and the centre of the eastern empire for over a thousand years after his death. He also, of course, began a process of Christianisation which would transform the western world.

We may not like Constantine, but he was hardly overrated. He was one of the most influential figures in ancient history, and second only to Augustus in defining the Roman empire.

I also place some serious blame on him for depleting the military resoruces of the empire. I also don;t think his decisions to quarter the field armies in cities has been given sufficient critical examination.

Those 'military resources' were depleted in civil war - which would have happened anyway whether Constantine was involved or not!

Armies had been quartered in cities in the east for a long time, and apparently in northern Gaul from the later 3rd century. Constantine just regulated what had been an ongoing ad hoc arrangement of defence in depth. The remarkable drop in barbarian incursions during his long reign suggests he chose wisely.

Diocletian is overrated

Diocletian was a skillful politician who knew how to delegate power; he could also be ruthless when he needed to be. His institution of the tetrarchy ended the third century crisis, enabling Roman armies to repel the waves of barbarian invasion and local usurpation which had plagued the preceding decades. The tetrarchy itself was a complex and often confusing structure, but undoubtably an effective one, and still debated widely - Leadbetter's Galerius and the Will of Diocletian is a good counter to the view of Galerius as the evil genius of his age.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think that I to would agree with AMELIANVS about Trajan and of course he is known as the soldier Emperor and very much an expansionist, however when he died he left Hadrian with many problems of an empire over stretched where there were troubles in the east as well as the west that forced Hadrian into being known now as the consolidator.

[AMELIANVS]

I agree Brian- I forgot to mention it.I think this is also good example of what makes Emperor favorite at common people-Trajan simply seems so much more "cool"to general audience with his wars if compared to Hadrian who might be viewed(and really is-I encountered with it many times)as boring and less polpular despite he would maybe deserve bigger credit than Trajan for certain things.

[AMELIANVS]

Diocletian was a skillful politician who knew how to delegate power; he could also be ruthless when he needed to be.

Universal Quality of those best from Emperors :evil: