The Emperors-Greatest of them all

[Quintus.JC]

Please choose the emperor who is in your opinion as the ' Optimus Princeps'

Emperors of Rome

Julio-Caudian emperors
Augustus 27BC-AD14
Tiberius AD14-37
Gaius (Caligula) AD37-41
Claudius AD41-54
Nero AD54-68

Year of the four emperors
Galba AD68-69
Otho AD69
Vitellius AD69

Flavian emperors
Vespasian AD69-79
Titus AD79-81
Domitian AD81-96

Adoptive and Antonine emperors
Nerva AD96-98
Trajan AD98-117
Hadrian AD117-38
Antoninus Pius AD138-61
Marcus Aurelius AD161-80
And Lucius Verus AD 161-169
Commodus AD180-92

Civil war
Pertinax AD193
Didius Julianus AD193

Severan emperors
Septimius Severus AD193-211
Caracalla AD211-17 and Geta AD211
Mancrinus AD 217-18
Elagabalus AD218-22
Alexander Severus AD222-35

Emperors of the age of chaos
Maximinus Thrax AD235-8
Gordian I AD238
Gordian II AND 238
Pupienus and Balbinus AD238
Gordian III AD238-44
Philip the Arab AD244-9
Decius AD249-51
Trebonianus Gallus AD251-3
Aemilius Aemilianus AD253
Valerian AD253-60
Gallienus AD253-68
Claudius II “Gothicus” AD268-70
Quintillus AD270
Aurelian AD270-75
Tacitus AD257-6
Probus AD276-82
Carus AD282-3
Numerian AD283-4
Carinus AD283-5

“Gallic” emperors
Postumus AD260-9
Laelianus AD269
Marius AD269
Victorinus AD268-71
Tetricus AD271-4

The tetrarchs and their successors
Diocletian AD284-305
Maximian AD286-305 and AD307-8
Constantius I AD305-6
Galerius AD305-11
Severus II AD306-7
Maxentius AD306-12
Maximinus Daia AD310-13
Licinius AD308-24


Emperors of the house of Constantine
Constantine I AD306-37
Constantine II AD337-40
Constans AD337-50
Constantius II AND337-61
Julian AD361-3
Jovian AD363-4
Valentinian I (west) AD364-75
And Valens (east) AD 364-75
Gratian AD367-83
Valentinian II AD375-92
Magnus Maximus (usurper0 AD383-8
Eugenius (usurper) AD392-4


Theodosian emperors
Theodosius I AD379-95
Arcadius (east) AD395-408
Honorius (west) AD395-423
Constantius III AD421
Theodosius II (east) AD408-50
Valentinian III (west) AD425-55


Last Western emperors
Marjorian AD457-61
Anthemius AD467-72
Romulus Augustulus AD475-6
Julius Nepos AD473-80

[Spartan198]

Romulus Augustulus,because he was the father of King Arthur!

No,just kidding,lol. I know he wasn't.

This is a really difficult one,because various caesars each did great things on behalf of Rome and the world. Augustus,Trajan,Marcus Aurelias,and Diocletian are all easy choices.

But,for the sake of wrapping this up without a lengthy essay,I put my vote in for Augustus. You can't go wrong with the guy who gave fidelity bonuses in Roman marriage and tried to root out corruption (at least,that's how I see it).

[CountArach]

Well Augustus is going to win this poll because he was the founder and basically set the standard for years to come. However, I chose to exclude him when I voted and it came down to Trajan for me.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I voted Vespasian as he put the Empire back on track after a period of instability, (year of four emperors). Can't really say more now, going out, but I'll be back!

[Quintus.JC]

No-one for Diocletian? (apart from me)

[Conradus]

Well I voted for Augustus obviously because he was the founder and arguably the best one Rome ever got. Though if we were to exclude him, my vote would go to Hadrian. Trajan knew how to conquer huge amounts of land, but it was Hadrian who realised that Rome needed strong borders, and saw to that. Combine this with his love for Greek culture, you have one emperor who deserves my vote.

[spmetla]

I vote Augustus; though there was initially civil war he kept the empire relatively stable during his reign. Though the haphazard attempt at conquering Germania and his panic when Illyria revolted show a bit of mental instability. Having capable people surround him overcame a lot of that though. In his own words he found Rome in bricks and left it in marble.

My biggest gripe against him was not estabilishing a good policy for succesion, a clearly defined hereditary system or some sort of method of appointment would have saved the empire from a lot of woe.

[Furious Mental]

Although the Romans in Augustus' time were amenable to a principate and political dynasties, they had a particular distaste for monarchy. Octavian created the institution of a plebiscatory and meritocratic despot because it was not viable for him to do other than mask autocracy behind the forms and conventions of the oligarchic Republic.

[Spartan198]

No-one for Diocletian? (apart from me)

Personally,Diocletian came in a close second on my list. So,no,you're not the only one.

[Quintus.JC]

Dioclecian saved Rome from the 3rd century crisis. Without him Rome could of been destroyed before Constantine and Theodosius was even born. He faced so much problem when he step into the realm and totally changed the empire. Not to mention that he was like the first emperor in 50 years to die in his bed. All the other was either murdered or died in battle.

[Wasp]

Marcus Aurelius, for being the philosopher-emperor (in some way).

[Vladimir]

Maximus the Merciful.

[Quintus.JC]

Looks like the winner is Augustus then. The first of them all and the greatest of them all.

Maybe I should of done the worst emperors poll as well. Anyway, here's an shortlist of The Emperors: worst of them all

Caligula
Nero 1
Domitian
Commodus
Caracalla
Elagabalus 1
others, explain

I know there's lots of rubbish emperors in those times but these guys really stand out for obivious reasons.
Please name who and why.

[YellowMelon]

Nero for playing a fiddle when there was a perfectly good fire to watch.

[L.C.Cinna]

Gallienus: saved the empire during its biggest crisis

[Quintus.JC]

I'm glad someone voted for Gallienus and Aurelian, these folks don't get the credit they really deserve, same goes for Dioclecian.

[Quintus.JC]

For the Worst Emperor, I vote for Elagabalus.

[TruePraetorian]

I choose Augustus. First Emporer, after all, and set the standards. He was the only Emperor to rule solely for the people, and was very conservative in his actions. He "found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble" and that statement is actually pretty correct.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

For the worst I'd say Gaius (Caligula) was worse than Nero. I don't believe that he started the fire, though it certainly benefited him greatly... ah scratch that maybe he did I don't know!

Anyway I vote Caligula, although I think Valentian III deserves an honourable (or is that dishonourable) mention for neglecting to stop his sister Honoria from trying to marry Attila the Hun. Pretty much gave him an excuse to invade the Western Roman Empire , and didn't really help matters much there!

EDIT: he also had Aetius murdered. What an idiot.

[Quintus.JC]

Nero most probably did not start the fire that burned half of Rome down. Nero was a joke. While Caligula was just mad, the guy was mental. After a fine first 6-month rule he fell ill and was never the same man. Caligula was initially popular, taking over from a rather unpopular emperor.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I know Caligula was initally popular, afaik he actually brought in some good reforms and supported the Senate more (you know gave it more influence actually listened to its advice) than Tiberius before him. Then he went nuts,or to be more pc, had a mental illness and it all went wrong from there. Trampled the senate in to the dust killed people etc etc.

Nero I think followed the same sort of pattern, but was always more unstable, I think that trying to have your own mother executed isn't a good sign! His policies weren't overly-bad imo at least to begin with. Sending Suetonius Paulinus to Britain wasn't a bad idea at the time, and recalling him after Boudicca was crushed, (and Paulinus was getting his kicks off wiping the Iceni from the face of the earth) was also a good idea. You can even make a case that his persecutuion of the Christians wasn't really him being vindictive. The christians at that time were considered heretical Jews, which was of no moment to the Romans. They were persecuted because they refused to take oaths of allegiance to the Emporer, ie Nero and refused to consider him divine. This was potentially damaging to the Emporers prestige and as such the behaviour had to be stamped out.

Thats making a lot of assumptions regarding things I don't know a whole lot about, so if any one wants to refute me feel free.

So thats why I consider Caligula a worse Emporer than Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (Nero)! I don't know anything about Elagabalus and don't know enough about Domitian (I know he was bad though). Commodus imo cannot be anywhere near as bad as is portrayed in the completely ahistorical Gladiator (not a bad movie though), so I couldn't vote for him.

EDIT: Woot! 100th Post!

[Quintus.JC]

Nero and Caligula did have somewhat similar pattern in their beginning rule, Caligula taking over from Tiberius who was paranoid and sort of crazy. Nero had the aid of Seneca and Burrus, who were all talented people. But Caligula was a sane man when first became emperor and later went absolutely berserk. While Nero was always kind of a prat. Both of them were super extravagant, but I’d say Caligula was the worse one because of his mental problems.
Domitian wasn’t that bad of an emperor. He was an emperor whose reputation varied greatly. To the Senate and its supporters, including the bias historian Tacitus, and also to many equestrians, he was an increasingly paranoid autocrat and priggish idiot. To the army and to many people in the provinces, he was a conscientious and efficient emperor. Main reason for his portrayal is because of Tacitus who really hated him.
Commandos was really that bad, I don’t know where to start. He really liked to be a gladiator though. Fighting in arenas and dressed up as gladiator. It was him that start the civil war that ruined the work of the five good emperors and all their previous good works.
Elagabalus was an emperor that was of most bizarre lifestyle. I’ll post a short version of his live story later.

[Incongruous]

Hadrian, simply because he built such amazing structures, I mean mind blowing.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Constantinopolos is my favorite city...had to vote for its namesake.

[L.C.Cinna]

About the bad emperors:

Commodus and Elagabal are the two really bad ones from your list. the others surely aren't. The worst in general is the whole Theodosian dynasty and everything that followed. a complete bunch of unable, spoiled children.


As for Gaius and Nero: neither was mad, neither was bad. Nero didn't start the fire AND Nero didn't profit at all from it, on the contrary he lost his whole private collections and everything which he dearly loved, instead he sent all available troops to firefight in the densly populated poor areas. Nero and Gaius were emperors of the people who leaned towards monarchy without the Senate (Nero starts getting bad press after he passed a law which raised taxes for the rich and lowered them for the poor and middle classes). The true bad guys are in the Senate (and it's them who wrote the history).

[hellenes]

Guess whos this guy....

[Quintus.JC]

Guess whos this guy....

He looks like a Christian..............

[hellenes]

He looks like a Christian..............

A hint he was Roman Emperor

[The Foolish Horseman]

Is it Constantine?

[Quintus.JC]

I was gonna say Manuel I Komnenos or Justinian. But since he is a Roman Emperor then he's got to be Constantine. Even though I'd never seen a statue of him with a beard.