Favorite Roman Emperor? - Hadrian Built the Wall, Elagabalus trooned out...

[Spooky Bones]

I know we have some history spergs here so who's your favorite Emperor and why? Could be for the meme value (trannygabalus?) or genuinely the one you think was the best. Or for some other reason. The obvious choice is Augustus or Marcus Aurelius but I'm gonna actually say Hadrian. He Made Rome Great Again by Building the Wall. Also smacked down the Jews because his favorite twink (who he'd later declared a god) drowned. And built a bunch of other cool shit.

But on a serious note, he tamed the natural inclinations towards expansion during a time in which contraction was actually the best bet for safety and security of the people at home, even coming on the heels of the successes of Trajan. Not everyone was pleased by this either but it was the right call. That takes a confident man willing to think outside the box.

Best emperor ever or even best of the Five Good Emperors (his adoptive grandson was both, perhaps?) Maybe not. But I always thought his ability to see clear headedly the need to go against the prevailing winds and do what was best for the security of the Empire was admirable and he showed a great deal of flexibility.

How about you guys?

 

[Smug Chuckler]

Best: Augustus
Worst: Nero

 

[verissimus]

Marcus Aurelius for me.

 

[Spooky Bones]

Worst: Nero

I keep seeing pop history articles lately "reappraising" Nero and saying he was maligned by historians and actually a sensitive dude who was just misunderstood. They try to make excuses for his persecution of Christians among other things and say that he couldn't have "fiddled while Rome burned" ... because there were no fiddles!!!!!1 I personally place these articles in the broader context of modern degeneracy and await a book on the best Emperors where he, Caligula, and Elagabalus rate the best three and Augustus and Marcus Aurelius are heteronormative white supremacists (never mind the Romans enjoyed sodomy as a popular hobby and wouldn't have even understood contemporary ideas of race. They'd find a way.)

 

[Fromtheblackdepths]

Caligula. Who doesn't like a man who made his horse a title?

 

[Jewthulhu]

Null

 

[Cheerlead-in-Chief]

I liked Augustus.
Not a fan of Caligula, and Nero being compared to The Beast by Christians amuse me.

 

[Kitten Kalamity]

I'll go with the first and best Augustus but Claudius is a close runner up

For worst? I'll say Elagabalus. The man only ruled for 4 years and managed to make every single part of Roman society hate him. Also you need to be one hell of a narcissist to make yourself a god and persecute anyone who doesn't worship you.

I keep seeing pop history articles lately "reappraising" Nero and saying he was maligned by historians and actually a sensitive dude who was just misunderstood. They try to make excuses for his persecution of Christians among other things and say that he couldn't have "fiddled while Rome burned" ... because there were no fiddles!!!!!1

There's some room for that view. The sources about Nero disagree on a lot. For instance, where was Nero during the great fire of Rome? Did he set the fire himself? Was he watching from a distance while singing? Or was he playing the lyre? Was he he even anywhere near Rome at the time? Did he actually organize a relief effort at great expense to himself? Basically, some historians take these contradictions as evidence that the critical sources were making things up to make him look bad because his policies were generally unpopular with the upper class.

For my two cents, its kind of a weak theory. Almost all the sources blame Nero in some way for the fire. The only one that doesn't is Tacitus and he says that he doesn't discount the idea. Also, Tacitus, despite claiming that Nero greatly helped out the victims of the fire, is also the one who emphasizes the extent that his persecution of the Christians was barbaric and unjust. Essentially, most sources say he started the fire and even the most generous source says he tried to shift any possible blame for himself and did so in a horrific manner. You also have corroboration in Christian scripture with Nero being identified with the great beast in Revelation with the whole 666/616 thing suggesting the sources are accurate as regards a viscous persecution occurring.

We know that Nero benefitted massively from the fire and it helped him realize many of his plans. Also, throw in the other things that are more concrete (like him killing his own Mother, using public funds for self aggrandizement, and being a massive coward) its not too much of a stretch to just conclude he was an asshole, probably did start the fire, and did persecute the Christians.

The argument against the common view is that everyone is lying about him and that some people in Greece liked him so he must have been really popular in Rome. Josephus does say that he thinks Nero is somewhat unfairly treated by other writers but still agrees that he was a tyrant. pretty weak. That said, revisionist takes on people regarded as one of history's greatest monsters are a good way to generate waves in the academic world or potentially even make a best-selling pop history book.

 

[Fucktwat The Clown]

Caligula because he was crazy as shit.​

One of my favorite villain, Judge Cal was based off him.

 

[User names must be unique]

Magnus Maximus because it's a chad name and he helped fight off the great conspiracy.

 

[Thiletonomics]

I did admire how Vespasian got the Empire back in (some what) functioning order, following the chaos of Nero's reign, and his final words of "Dear me, I think I am turning into a god".

Also, how creepy was Commodus, compared to the other emperors that were looked down upon, namely Caligula?

 

[Karl der Grosse]

I've got to go with Augustus. Not only did he stabilize the Roman World militarily, economically, and socially, he completely revamped Rome's political practices. The Roman institutions that were perfectly adequate for governing a city-state or a small nation were obviously and clearly falling apart when attempting to administer a large country with many territories, both internally and overseas. Sulla had tried to fix this by returning the Republic back to its roots and strengthening the control of the most important Roman political families, but that wasn't the solution. Augustus went the other way, and largely neutered the Roman political families and opened up important positions to capable outsiders, like Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa. Agrippa almost succeeded Augustus on several occasions when it appeared Augustus would die without a suitable heir. It's a shame, in a way. If the principle that the empire should go to the most capable man could have been integrated into the Empire from the start, there's no telling what could've been.

 

[Lone MacReady]

Augustus: Being the first, and consolidating those borders nicely. Also deifying his adopted father Caesar.
Aurelian: For the meme and for his actual based-Reign being an amazing whirlwind regardless. Built A Wall Around Rome.
Hadrian: Eternally heroic for banning circumcision throughout the Empire, and triggering the Jews so much. Built A Wall to keep Picts out.
Trajan: Look at those fucking borders.
Claudius II et Probus: Illyrian princes connected to Aurelian in the Legion in some way, and played vital roles in ending the 3rd Century Crisis before Diocletian.
The Flavians: Knew how to un-Jew the economy, all of them did, in their own ways...

 

[Spooky Bones]

Magnus Maximus because it's a chad name and he helped fight off the great conspiracy.

I always thought that Maximinus Thrax was one of the most bad ass names, too...too bad that for all his 8-foot-tall Chaddish ways, he may have been a good, if brutal, soldier and commander but way out of his depth as emperor and wound up being a shit emperor who got done in by his own people.

If the principle that the empire should go to the most capable man could have been integrated into the Empire from the start, there's no telling what could've been.

Perhaps demonstrated nowhere better than Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, since adoptive succession had been working very well up till then. If Marcus hadn't wanted to elevated his own blood we might be talking about the Six (or more) Good Emperors. It's difficult competition between the three worst Emperors but Commodus is definitely up there (Commodus, Caligula, and Nero; Elagabalus and maybe Caracalla or Thrax round out the top 5.) Think if you didn't have Commodus's lax administration and devaluation of the currency and more power to the Praetorian guard...would it prevent the Crisis two generations later? Maybe not but maybe things wouldn't have gotten quite so out of hand to begin with.

Aurelian: For the meme and for his actual based-Reign being an amazing whirlwind regardless. Built A Wall Around Rome.

Underrated choice, definitely saved Rome from the brink. One wonders what he could have accomplished with more time, or if that would've just afforded him time to tarnish the gold.

 

[usernames can change now!]

Justinian. If it wasn't for a little Black Death, we could have had another few centuries of Roman Empire, and probably wouldn't have had the abortion of the HRE.

 

[TurdFondler]

Vespasian because he refilled Rome's coffers via tax on public toilets

"pecunia non olet"

 

[Spooky Bones]

pecunia non olet

Atqui ex lotio est

 

[Free the Pedos]

Justinian. If it wasn't for a little Black Death, we could have had another few centuries of Roman Empire, and probably wouldn't have had the abortion of the HRE.

You beat me to it. Maybe make Theodosius II runner up for using sports hooligans to rebuild the Theodosian Walls.

 

[RuneWarrior]

Hadrian was a pretty cool lad

 

[soy_king]

Trajan's alright, and so is Septimius Severus, but Augustus is best Emperor.