Best Roman Emperor Debate Thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Breadbassket

Breadbassket

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Anyone from Augustus to Constantine XI is is eligible for the title. Byzantine Empire rulers are included because they and their subjects continually maintained a Roman identity.
 
Last edited:
Nero is up there. Contemporary sources were just mad that he was a populist.
 
Trajan. Every thing went downhill after Trajan.
1738009695784.png
 
Either Augustus or Aurelian.

Augustus managed to turn Rome from a decaying Republic that had constant and devastating civil wars into the largest and most powerful empire of its time and his tenure as emperor created a remarkably stable system so that even when the empire was ruled by some of the worst rulers ever, such as Nero and Caligula, the empire managed to hold on. Also, the man was prone to sickness but that didn't stop him, he quite literally made his weak body obey his strong will numerous times, also also need to make a shotout to Agrippa, without him there wouldn't have been an Augustus, best bro in all of history.

As for Aurelian, while he only ruled for 5 years in those 5 years he managed to save the Empire from total collapse as it found itself in the worst part of the Crisis of the 3rd century, the Western and Eastern provinces had rebelled, large hordes of barbarians were running rampant through the border regions, disease was spreading, social cohesion was collapsing and the economy was imploding and yet this absolute gigachad of a man more or less fixed most of those problems in the 5 years he ruled as Emperor, reconquering the separatist provinces, defeating and sending the barbarians back into the shithole they came from (Aka G*rmany), upgrading the defenses of Rome, beginning the reforms of the army to make it more mobile and flexible, reforming the tax system and more.
So why did he got shanked? The answer is corruption, Aurelian had a massive hateboner for corrupt officials, handing out death sentences for relatively minor offences, eventually, a certain secretary knew that he'd be executed soon so he decided to forge Aurelian's signature in order to fake a document that said that Aurelian was going to go after the Praetorian Guard soon, the secretary passed the document to the Praetorian prefects and the Praetorians did what they did best and they killed the emperor, Aurelian was dead, the empire went back into crisis and things went back to shit.

Also Aurelian recieved one of, if not the most badass title in history, Restitutor Orbis, the Restorer of the World.
 
"Best" got to be Augustus, nobody comes close.

Honorable mentions on the second place are Constantine the Great, Claudius, Trajan and Hadrian.

I also like Probus, because he allowed wine to be cultivated in my home country.
We still have frescos of the dude on vineyard buildings and taverns.
 
While Augustus and Aurelian are obvious picks, let's do a bit of the Devil's Advocate and try for others.

Domitian, the man that got shit done. While the senatorial class hated his guts and of course propagandized the following Antonine dinasty, Domitian was a resourceful ruler: I still entertain the idea that he was one of the few Emperors who truly had a basic understanding of economics and worked to support the lifeblood of the Empire. Furthermore, his campaign of public works was immense (helped by his relatively long reign). Italy is littered by Roman ruins built under Domitian and then kept in use, not only in Rome itself but also in other Italian cities. His military campaigns weren't glamorous and mostly propaganda exercises, but he understood very well how to keep the soldiers fed, happy and how adventurism was expensive.

Diocletian. Diocletian inherited a world that was breaking at the seams: while Aurelian re-united the Empire, Diocletian reforged it in a structure that with blood, steel and ritual kept Rome still on her feet for 150+ more years in the West and more than a millennia in the East. Despite his failed political and economical policies, his military reforms managed to re-build a functional army for a new type of Empire. While his dream of retiring like a new Sulla to see the state go on without him was not to be, he took that broken world he inherited and forged Late Antiquity almost single handedly.

Heraclius, Eastern Emperor. If Islam did not exist he would be remembered as an Aurelian, desperately trying to fix the unfixable and curtail structural problems of the Empire, and he almost managed to do so. Then a weirdo Arab cult knifed both him and the Persians while they were exhausted and the rest is history.

Costantine IV gets a call-out for saving the entirety of Civilization from speaking Arab. We won't be there if not for this man.

Basil II, another man who got shit done, tried to fix the economy, fix the societal issues and slaughtered Bulgarians and muslims by the thousands, always a God-given mission.
 
I like a lot of the emperors listed here but one that hasn't been mentioned is Alexios Komnenos. He stabilized the empire after the disaster at Manzikert. He also fought off the Normans from the West and the Turks from the east and regained a bit of territory. He accidentally encouraged the crusades to start but it helped keep a lot of the Muslim focus off of his empire so it was a win untill the 4th crusade. His dynasty after his death was pretty good too.
 
Anastasius, dude left a ridiculous amount of gold in the Byzantine treasury for Justin and Justinian to fuck around with. No Anastasius, no money for Belisarius to run around Africa and Italy bitchslapping Vandals and Goths, or for Justinian to build the Hagia Sophia
 
Antoninus Pius. He oversaw a generation of unrivaled peace and prosperity across the Empire.

He was also a very kind and just man who loved his wife and children, expanded the state's welfare programs and protected Christians from persecution. He even created a charitable foundation in honor of his deceased wife Faustina.
 
Hard to argue against Augustus.

Agamemnon Busmalis said:
Antoninus Pius.
Click to expand...
He also made the presumption of innocence into a law. One of the few truly good men that ever wore the purple. That being said while I'm sure living under Antoninus must've been pretty great I'd argue his reign was far too peaceful. A war here and there (mostly against the pesky Parthians) would have been good for the future of the empire.
 
Augustus is the obvious choice.

Diocletian is up there on the list. Military, administration, currency, cost of living -- if it could be reformed, he reformed it, while still being mindful of traditional virtus. He tried to keep those upstart hippie Christians in line, for which history remembers him poorly. I think from his perspective it made sense to tell the Christians to fuck off. You've just fought some asshole for the imperial purple and inherited an empire that's been on the decline for a while. One source of internal friction is this weird Eastern cult that doesn't worship the Roman gods and keeps talking shit about kingdoms greater than Rome and kings greater than you. What do you do? If you're Diocletian, you tell them to worship the true gods, but then you royally fuck it up and only make them more devoted to their faith. I think it was a good idea from the perspective of a guy trying to steer his empire back on track, he just failed to stick the landing, and I think he gets more shit for it than he deserves. Other than that, he was one of the last good western emperors.
 
My favourites are Augustus and Contantine the Great.
Augustus doesn't need an explanation.
It's thanks to Constantine that the Roman Empire survived the coming centuries at all. While Aurelian and Diocletian restored the Roman Empire from the brink of collapse, Contantine reshaped the Empire by completing the reforms started by his predecessors and breathed new life into it. The Byzantines obviously couldn't have lasted if it wasn't for Constantinople. Other cities in Greece and western Anatolia also grew by putting the focus of the Empire eastwards.
Since I'm a Christian I am obviously very biased towards him and I don't care (heathens can cry about it + cope and seethe + L + Christ is King). I believe the Empire would've become Christian even without him but he still helped the Christianisation a lot.

Not the best but Vespasian deserves to be at least in the top 5 but get's overlooked way to often. He legitimised the emperorship outside of Augustus family by actually reigning successful and stay alive for several years. The emperors who came after him over the next two centuries had more in common with him, than with the original dynasty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom