Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Trajan the Greatest Emperor?

Expand Messages
  • postumusagrippa
    It s hard to go past him, but it must be remembered that he had help from Agrippa and Maecenas. That being said, I suppose it may have been that other Emperors
    Message 1 of 26 , Jun 1, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      It's hard to go past him, but it must be remembered that he had help from Agrippa and Maecenas.

      That being said, I suppose it may have been that other Emperors had their helpers, but we just don't know them as well.

      Barry

      --- In imperialrome2@..., Rudolphus9@... wrote:
      >
      > What about Augustus?
      >
    • Stephen
      Salve, My top five would be: 1.) Augustus 2.) Trajan 3.) Constantine 4.) Theodossius 5.) Marcus Aurellius
      Message 2 of 26 , Jun 3, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Salve,

        My top five would be:

        1.) Augustus
        2.) Trajan
        3.) Constantine
        4.) Theodossius
        5.) Marcus Aurellius


        --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > It's hard to go past him, but it must be remembered that he had help from Agrippa and Maecenas.
        >
        > That being said, I suppose it may have been that other Emperors had their helpers, but we just don't know them as well.
        >
        > Barry
        >
        > --- In imperialrome2@..., Rudolphus9@ wrote:
        > >
        > > What about Augustus?
        > >
        >
      • Richard W
        Though I don t like him Augustus woudl be on my list. Vespasian as well for restoring both stability and financial sanity to the Empire. Marcus Aurelius,
        Message 3 of 26 , Jun 3, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Though I don't like him Augustus woudl be on my list. Vespasian as well for restoring both stability and financial sanity to the Empire. Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Hadrian, as a Christain I should say Constantine but in reality I have far greater regard for his mother Helena. Lastly Theodosius should be in the running.

          --- In imperialrome2@..., "Stephen" <gaiusantoniusflavius@...> wrote:
          >
          > Salve,
          >
          > My top five would be:
          >
          > 1.) Augustus
          > 2.) Trajan
          > 3.) Constantine
          > 4.) Theodossius
          > 5.) Marcus Aurellius
          >
          >
          > --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@> wrote:
          > >
          > > It's hard to go past him, but it must be remembered that he had help from Agrippa and Maecenas.
          > >
          > > That being said, I suppose it may have been that other Emperors had their helpers, but we just don't know them as well.
          > >
          > > Barry
          > >
          > > --- In imperialrome2@..., Rudolphus9@ wrote:
          > > >
          > > > What about Augustus?
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • postumusagrippa
          I m curious why Theodosius I is considered a top 5 contender? The interesting thing is when you actually look at the Roman Emperors, they tend to be rather
          Message 4 of 26 , Jun 4, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm curious why Theodosius I is considered a top 5 contender?


            The interesting thing is when you actually look at the Roman Emperors, they tend to be rather less impressive than a cursory glance would have you believe.

            The so-called Good Emperors are especially prone to being less impressive than what the Senatorial writers claim.

            Barry

            --- In imperialrome2@..., "Richard W" <gauiscaecilius@...> wrote:
            >
            > Though I don't like him Augustus woudl be on my list. Vespasian as well for restoring both stability and financial sanity to the Empire. Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Hadrian, as a Christain I should say Constantine but in reality I have far greater regard for his mother Helena. Lastly Theodosius should be in the running.
            >
            > --- In imperialrome2@..., "Stephen" <gaiusantoniusflavius@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Salve,
            > >
            > > My top five would be:
            > >
            > > 1.) Augustus
            > > 2.) Trajan
            > > 3.) Constantine
            > > 4.) Theodossius
            > > 5.) Marcus Aurellius
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > It's hard to go past him, but it must be remembered that he had help from Agrippa and Maecenas.
            > > >
            > > > That being said, I suppose it may have been that other Emperors had their helpers, but we just don't know them as well.
            > > >
            > > > Barry
            > > >
            > > > --- In imperialrome2@..., Rudolphus9@ wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > What about Augustus?
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Stephen
            He was able to stop the Goths from sacking the both the Western and Eastern part s of the Roman Empire after Valen s defeat at the Battle of Adrianople. It s a
            Message 5 of 26 , Jun 4, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              He was able to stop the Goths from sacking the both the Western and Eastern part's of the Roman Empire after Valen's defeat at the Battle of Adrianople. It's a long complex story, but essentially he was able to secure their loyalty as foderate to rebuild his army. He was also the last Roman Emperor to rule a unified Roman Empire. The end of his reign also marks the end of the Classical Age and we see the move into the Dark Age's. He wasn't given the name Theodossius the Great for nothing! :) Really, Hadrian and Vespasian do deserve serious consideration as well. The big thing about Theodossius is he provided much needed stabiliy when the Empire, both halves, could have tanked. While the West did not survive but maybe 75 years after his death, it would have almost certainly fallen faster had he not brought stability. And the East did survive another 1,000 years. His biggest disappointment as Emperor was no doubt leaving the Empire to his sons. He should have left it unified and gave it all to Stilicho who saw himself as Roman, but the senate saw him as a Vandal. However, he was bright and a skilled diplomant and General and I feel he would have done great things had he not been assassinated.

              --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              > I'm curious why Theodosius I is considered a top 5 contender?
              >
              >
              > The interesting thing is when you actually look at the Roman Emperors, they tend to be rather less impressive than a cursory glance would have you believe.
              >
              > The so-called Good Emperors are especially prone to being less impressive than what the Senatorial writers claim.
              >
              > Barry
              >
              > --- In imperialrome2@..., "Richard W" <gauiscaecilius@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Though I don't like him Augustus woudl be on my list. Vespasian as well for restoring both stability and financial sanity to the Empire. Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Hadrian, as a Christain I should say Constantine but in reality I have far greater regard for his mother Helena. Lastly Theodosius should be in the running.
              > >
              > > --- In imperialrome2@..., "Stephen" <gaiusantoniusflavius@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Salve,
              > > >
              > > > My top five would be:
              > > >
              > > > 1.) Augustus
              > > > 2.) Trajan
              > > > 3.) Constantine
              > > > 4.) Theodossius
              > > > 5.) Marcus Aurellius
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > It's hard to go past him, but it must be remembered that he had help from Agrippa and Maecenas.
              > > > >
              > > > > That being said, I suppose it may have been that other Emperors had their helpers, but we just don't know them as well.
              > > > >
              > > > > Barry
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In imperialrome2@..., Rudolphus9@ wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > What about Augustus?
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • amicus@webtv.net
              Roman Emperors - DIR Theodosius I Address: http://www.roman-emperors.org/theo1.htm
              Message 6 of 26 , Jun 4, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Roman Emperors - DIR Theodosius I
                Address:


                http://www.roman-emperors.org/theo1.htm
              • postumusagrippa
                Hmm, interesting, I ll have to look into him a bit more. That being said, I would I seem to recall some having issues with him enrolling so many Germanics into
                Message 7 of 26 , Jun 4, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hmm, interesting, I'll have to look into him a bit more.

                  That being said, I would

                  I seem to recall some having issues with him enrolling so many Germanics into the Roman army, but I can't remember the exact details.

                  Also while I'm sure Theodosius deserves some commendation for keeping the Empire going, I'm not sure he deserves too much credit for the 1000 more years of the Eastern section, rather I'm more inclined to believe that he was just the last of the competent (not great, just solid) Emperors (ie. the Emperors who were skilled enough to keep a 'sinking' Empire afloat, others in this vein being Constantius II and Valentinian I).

                  I do certainly agree that his choice to pass a split Empire to his sons was a grave mistake, one that failed for pretty much every Emperor who attempted it (father to son succession was a mistake pretty much every time it was done).

                  I'm surprised that you've not mentioned Aurelian (or Probus), without whom the Empire may well have fallen in the late 3rd century.

                  Barry

                  --- In imperialrome2@..., "Stephen" <gaiusantoniusflavius@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > He was able to stop the Goths from sacking the both the Western and Eastern part's of the Roman Empire after Valen's defeat at the Battle of Adrianople. It's a long complex story, but essentially he was able to secure their loyalty as foderate to rebuild his army. He was also the last Roman Emperor to rule a unified Roman Empire. The end of his reign also marks the end of the Classical Age and we see the move into the Dark Age's. He wasn't given the name Theodossius the Great for nothing! :) Really, Hadrian and Vespasian do deserve serious consideration as well. The big thing about Theodossius is he provided much needed stabiliy when the Empire, both halves, could have tanked. While the West did not survive but maybe 75 years after his death, it would have almost certainly fallen faster had he not brought stability. And the East did survive another 1,000 years. His biggest disappointment as Emperor was no doubt leaving the Empire to his sons. He should have left it unified and gave it all to Stilicho who saw himself as Roman, but the senate saw him as a Vandal. However, he was bright and a skilled diplomant and General and I feel he would have done great things had he not been assassinated.
                  >
                  > --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I'm curious why Theodosius I is considered a top 5 contender?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > The interesting thing is when you actually look at the Roman Emperors, they tend to be rather less impressive than a cursory glance would have you believe.
                  > >
                  > > The so-called Good Emperors are especially prone to being less impressive than what the Senatorial writers claim.
                  > >
                  > > Barry
                  > >
                  > > --- In imperialrome2@..., "Richard W" <gauiscaecilius@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Though I don't like him Augustus woudl be on my list. Vespasian as well for restoring both stability and financial sanity to the Empire. Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Hadrian, as a Christain I should say Constantine but in reality I have far greater regard for his mother Helena. Lastly Theodosius should be in the running.
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In imperialrome2@..., "Stephen" <gaiusantoniusflavius@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Salve,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > My top five would be:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 1.) Augustus
                  > > > > 2.) Trajan
                  > > > > 3.) Constantine
                  > > > > 4.) Theodossius
                  > > > > 5.) Marcus Aurellius
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@> wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > It's hard to go past him, but it must be remembered that he had help from Agrippa and Maecenas.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > That being said, I suppose it may have been that other Emperors had their helpers, but we just don't know them as well.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Barry
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > --- In imperialrome2@..., Rudolphus9@ wrote:
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > What about Augustus?
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • postumusagrippa
                  I m curious - would anyone put Justinian in their top 5 Roman Emperors? I imagine that Justinian would have been quite offended if he found himself referred to
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jun 5, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm curious - would anyone put Justinian in their top 5 Roman Emperors?

                    I imagine that Justinian would have been quite offended if he found himself referred to as a Byzantine Emperor rather than a Roman Emperor.

                    Also on a related matter, I think it's a a terrible shame that Justinian was in the period when the Emperors put a non-individualised image on their coins.

                    Barry
                  • Stephen
                    I consider Justinian a Roman Emperor, but the problem with Justinian is he ran the Eastern Empire into the ground. His ventures West nearly bankrupted the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jun 6, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I consider Justinian a Roman Emperor, but the problem with Justinian is he ran the Eastern Empire into the ground. His ventures West nearly bankrupted the empire and the plaque greatly depleeted it's population. Of course the plaque is not his fault, but his greedy tactics of not paying his troops and paranoia in his generals such as Narses and Belisarius proved fatal. Had he been willing to trust Belisarius in full it is possible the Italian Campaign may have finished quicker and he could have re-established Italy vs. running into into the ground with contact combat. Either way, his campaigns, while great in the moment, were far to detrimental to the overall life of the Eastern Empire. While I consider him a Roman Emperor, I would rank even Claudius higher than him or Aurelian who you referenced before.

                      --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I'm curious - would anyone put Justinian in their top 5 Roman Emperors?
                      >
                      > I imagine that Justinian would have been quite offended if he found himself referred to as a Byzantine Emperor rather than a Roman Emperor.
                      >
                      > Also on a related matter, I think it's a a terrible shame that Justinian was in the period when the Emperors put a non-individualised image on their coins.
                      >
                      > Barry
                      >
                    • amicus@webtv.net
                      I m torn over Aurelian. He did a great job in defeating Zenobia and restoring the East to the Empire. But he gave up Dacia. And he began building the walls
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jun 7, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I'm torn over Aurelian. He did a great job in defeating Zenobia and
                        restoring the East to the Empire.


                        But he gave up Dacia.


                        And he began building the walls around Rome. Kind of like admitting the
                        future was bleak but I guess was realistic.
                      • frank morlock
                        I think it was reasonable for a resurgent Eastern Empire to try to recapture Italy and its ancient capital, as well as parts of the Mediterranean. (It would be
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jun 7, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I think it was reasonable for a resurgent Eastern Empire to try to recapture Italy and its ancient capital, as well as parts of the
                          Mediterranean. (It would be rather strange if it didn't at least make the attempt). Justinian's policies were ambitious, and successful  up to a point.Until Justinian, the Eastern Empire simply didn't have the resources or the will to recapture the West.
                          After Justinian, it no longer had the resources or the will.  However bad his treatment of Belisarius that doesn't seem to have
                          impacted his military successes. What changed the whole political and military landscape was the sudden eruption of Islam,
                          and the military/ religious and cultural forces this unleashed. Possibly, one of the reasons for Islam's success was the fact that
                          Justinian had diverted many resources to the Italian and Mediterranean campaigns, leaving the east somewhat vulnerable.
                          The Muslim/Arab explosion was certainly not on the horizon from the viewpoint of Constantinople when  Justinian was making
                          his decisions to move West. The enemy was Persia and was thought to be checked. It was the lossof Antioch and the Eastern
                          Mediterranean cities that put the East on its road to decline.I find it hard to hold Justinian responsible for that.
                           
                          Frank

                          Frank Morlock, The Man in The Iron Mask and other plays http://www.Roguepublishing.com


                           

                          To: imperialrome2@...
                          From: gaiusantoniusflavius@...
                          Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 03:25:16 +0000
                          Subject: [Imperial Rome] Re: Trajan the Greatest Emperor?

                           
                          I consider Justinian a Roman Emperor, but the problem with Justinian is he ran the Eastern Empire into the ground. His ventures West nearly bankrupted the empire and the plaque greatly depleeted it's population. Of course the plaque is not his fault, but his greedy tactics of not paying his troops and paranoia in his generals such as Narses and Belisarius proved fatal. Had he been willing to trust Belisarius in full it is possible the Italian Campaign may have finished quicker and he could have re-established Italy vs. running into into the ground with contact combat. Either way, his campaigns, while great in the moment, were far to detrimental to the overall life of the Eastern Empire. While I consider him a Roman Emperor, I would rank even Claudius higher than him or Aurelian who you referenced before.

                          --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I'm curious - would anyone put Justinian in their top 5 Roman Emperors?
                          >
                          > I imagine that Justinian would have been quite offended if he found himself referred to as a Byzantine Emperor rather than a Roman Emperor.
                          >
                          > Also on a related matter, I think it's a a terrible shame that Justinian was in the period when the Emperors put a non-individualised image on their coins.
                          >
                          > Barry
                          >




                          The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. Get busy.
                        • OctCocceius@aol.com
                          Perhaps Gallienus is the most under-rated but a possible candidate for restoring the Empire . Oct
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jun 8, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Perhaps Gallienus is the most under-rated but a possible candidate for "restoring the Empire".
                             
                            Oct
                          • postumusagrippa
                            He also regained the Gallic Empire without any (or very little) bloodshed, which was quite an achievement. As such, I personally think he did a pretty
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jun 9, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              He also regained the 'Gallic Empire' without any (or very little) bloodshed, which was quite an achievement.

                              As such, I personally think he did a pretty impressive job.

                              However, on an aside, I feel it was ruined by Diocletian - Aurelian and Probus had just spent all their time reuniting the Empire, and what does Diocletian do, but break it up again... sure, it was technically all still one Empire, but the cracks had been increased.

                              Barry

                              --- In imperialrome2@..., amicus@... wrote:
                              >
                              > I'm torn over Aurelian. He did a great job in defeating Zenobia and
                              > restoring the East to the Empire.
                              >
                              >
                              > But he gave up Dacia.
                              >
                              >
                              > And he began building the walls around Rome. Kind of like admitting the
                              > future was bleak but I guess was realistic.
                              >
                            • postumusagrippa
                              I m under the understanding that Belisarius was offered the position of Western Emperor, but refused (or was made to refuse). One wonders if that was a mistake
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jun 9, 2010
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I'm under the understanding that Belisarius was offered the position of Western Emperor, but refused (or was made to refuse).

                                One wonders if that was a mistake as a present skilled Emperor would have perhaps made rejoining the Empire more palatable to the Western provinces than being ruled by an unseen Emperor in faraway (especially for Hispania, Gaul and Britannia) Constantinople.

                                Did Justinian recall Belisarius because he was paranoid or did he recall Belisarius because he relied on the guy way too much and wanted him to protect the Eastern provinces (ie. do everything)?

                                It might sound a little bit like the Tacitus accusation against Domitian of recalling Agricola out of jealousy... but then it may have been necessity? I think the 'jealousy' accusation was fairly regularly used by Roman writers about Emperors and leading generals.

                                Barry

                                --- In imperialrome2@..., "Stephen" <gaiusantoniusflavius@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I consider Justinian a Roman Emperor, but the problem with Justinian is he ran the Eastern Empire into the ground. His ventures West nearly bankrupted the empire and the plaque greatly depleeted it's population. Of course the plaque is not his fault, but his greedy tactics of not paying his troops and paranoia in his generals such as Narses and Belisarius proved fatal. Had he been willing to trust Belisarius in full it is possible the Italian Campaign may have finished quicker and he could have re-established Italy vs. running into into the ground with contact combat. Either way, his campaigns, while great in the moment, were far to detrimental to the overall life of the Eastern Empire. While I consider him a Roman Emperor, I would rank even Claudius higher than him or Aurelian who you referenced before.
                                >
                                > --- In imperialrome2@..., postumusagrippa <no_reply@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > I'm curious - would anyone put Justinian in their top 5 Roman Emperors?
                                > >
                                > > I imagine that Justinian would have been quite offended if he found himself referred to as a Byzantine Emperor rather than a Roman Emperor.
                                > >
                                > > Also on a related matter, I think it's a a terrible shame that Justinian was in the period when the Emperors put a non-individualised image on their coins.
                                > >
                                > > Barry
                                > >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.