Five Good Emperors Overrated?

[hasdrubal barca]

Five Good Emperors Overrated?

The five good emperors: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrain, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius are hailed as some of the best leaders in Roman history. They are seen as a model for how rulers should behave even to this present day. As an example former President Bill Clinton's favorite book is Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

My question is do you feel the Five Good Emperors deserve the level of praise they receive? What do you think of the five emperors individually and as a whole? What's your main criticisms? Do any of them not deserve to be on this list? On the other hand should they instead be considered perhaps the five great emperors?

Interested in your thoughts.

 

[HIM Dogson]

Nerva: Definitely overrated, as he basically named Trajan his heir and that's it. Doesn't deserve to be called good.

Trajan: I'd say so. Although his conquest of Dacia was permanent, he lost a lot of men to take a territory he couldn't hold. He was a military genius and a benevolent monarch, so he was a great Emperor, just not quite as great as he's made out to be.

Hadrian: No, not really. He withdrew from territory the Empire couldn't possibly hold, and was overall exactly what I'd want an enlightened despot to be.

Antoninus: Yep. He ignored the storm that was building over the horizon; it was dumb luck that it didn't hit during his reign. Had he been more decisive he could have prevented the beginning of the decline.

Marcus Aurelius: If anything I'd say he's underrated. He gets a lot of flak for naming Commodus as his heir, but, as Mike Duncan correctly pointed out, not naming Commodus as his heir would have just created a figurehead for all opposition groups in the Empire to rally around, leading to civil war. Overall, we can't really say if a civil war would have been worse than Commodus's reign, but as Marcus Aurelius couldn't have possibly imagined what a dick Commodus turned out to be, we can only assume that he reasonably thought civil war to be the far worse option. That leaves him with either having Commodus as heir or killing his own son; while I believe that a good monarch should put their country above their family, killing one's own son seems a tad harsh, even for me. Thus, I think what most historians call MA's biggest mistake wasn't actually a mistake if we consider the information he had at the time.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I think everyone would have been better off if Commodus succumbed to the plague early on like his brother did in infancy.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

As an example former President Bill Clinton's favorite book is Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

That's quite silly. The Meditations are a very mediocre book, there's nothing visionary in it. A really great/good emperor would have written a political manifesto instead of a boring book about philosophy!

Nerva: Definitely overrated, as he basically named Trajan his heir and that's it. Doesn't deserve to be called good.

Nope. Nerva was a quite influential emperor, as he founded the alimenta system (although only on a private base, it was Trajan who founded the public alimenta). In some way, the alimenta system was the embryo of a welfare state Rome wanted to be, but Rome never became (Rome couldn't become such a social state given its low technologic and industrial level).

Trajan: I'd say so. Although his conquest of Dacia was permanent, he lost a lot of men to take a territory he couldn't hold. He was a military genius and a benevolent monarch, so he was a great Emperor, just not quite as great as he's made out to be.

So if you conquer a territory and your successor gives it up, it's your fault that you conquered it in the first place? Trajan receives a lot of criticism because he invested a lot in the Parthian campaign, but the profit of Rome controlling Mesopotamia and the trade with India would be huge. In fact, Rome conquering Mesopotamia would butterfly away the two-front war against both Germania and the Sassanian Empire.

Trajan is still the best Roman Emperor, the greatest in many aspects - even better than the founder of the empire, Augustus, who spilled much blood to come to the throne, including such great men like Cicero, Cleopatra, Cassius or Brutus.

Trajan was a wise and benevolent emperor, the best example for a working monarchy/dictatorship.

Hadrian: No, not really. He withdrew from territory the Empire couldn't possibly hold, and was overall exactly what I'd want an enlightened despot to be.

Well, Lusius Quietus had crushed the most important Jewish revolts in 117 CE, and the empire was ready to launch a second great offensive against Mesopotamia. With some heroic efforts of a great emperor (like Trajan or Quietus), Rome could then have retained Mesopotamia. Hadrian might have been clever, but he didn't realize the potential of the province of Mesopotamia.

It's not even clear that Trajan wanted Hadrian to become his successor, maybe Trajan changed his mind just before his death, but it was too late then and Trajan's wife made up Hadrian's adoption. Furthermore, he was a quite cruel leader who had the members of the senatorial opposition (people like Quietus who wanted to continue the war against Parthian) murdered (without a due process?).

But on the other hand, Hadrian really cared for the empire, so from a certain point of view, we can consider him as one of the "good" emperors.

However, never forget the mistake of surrendering the strategic initiative to Germania and Parthia!!!

Also, he (re)introduced these ugly beards - poor Antinous...

Antoninus: Yep. He ignored the storm that was building over the horizon; it was dumb luck that it didn't hit during his reign. Had he been more decisive he could have prevented the beginning of the decline.

I agree with you, Antoninus Pius was an idiot.

Marcus Aurelius: If anything I'd say he's underrated.

Well, I already said why I don't like Aurelius - he should have written a more interesting book (like Prophyrogennetos who wrote a book about politics).

But in fact, Aurelius only had to pay for the mistakes of his two predecessors. Antoninus had allowed the Germanic tribes to rise (for example the Marcomanni), whereas Hadrian had withdrawn from Mesopotamia. Now Aurelius had to fight on both fronts, against Germanic invasions and against invasions from Mesopotamia.

As to Commodus, it was the logical choice. Trajan and Hadrian were interested in men, so they couldn't father a son. Marcus Aurelius had a son, and if he hadn't appointed him successor, a civil war could have been triggered even earlier than OTL. Never forget that the "five good emperors" were an "adoptive dynasty" by force and not by choice.

And where, @HIM Dogson, is Lucius Verus?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

It's pretty clear Trajan wanted Hadrian to be his successor. He may not have officially named him as such but he was clearly grooming him for that role.

 

[Spartacus1224]

That's quite silly. The Meditations are a very mediocre book, there's nothing visionary in it. A really great/good emperor would have written a political manifesto instead of a boring book about philosophy!

You accept that this is a subjective opinion right? What some find boring, others find interesting. I for one think the Meditations were very insightful and rather useful.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

You accept that this is a subjective opinion right? What some find boring, others find interesting. I for one think the Meditations were very insightful and rather useful.

They weren't useful for Commodus, that's for sure. He would've been served better with a book about how holding the empire together.

It's pretty clear Trajan wanted Hadrian to be his successor. He may not have officially named him as such but he was clearly grooming him for that role.

It's possible that he wanted Hadrian to be his successor for some time, but then changed his mind. Read about the events during and after Trajan's death. It wasn't as clear as you might think.

Spoiler: What we know... and what we don't know

Trajan, seriously ill by that time, decided to return to Rome while Hadrian remained in Syria to guard the Roman rear. In practical terms, that meant that Hadrian was de facto general commander of the Eastern Roman army, something that made his power position as a potential claimant to the throne unchallengeable.[40] Trajan only got as far as Selinus before he became too ill to go further. While Hadrian may have been the obvious choice as successor, he had never been adopted as Trajan's heir. It is possible that Trajan never wanted to commit himself earlier with the appointment of a successor, as the great number of potential claimants made it possible that the definite choice of an heir would be seen as an abdication and therefore dash the chance for a transmission of power in an orderly way.[41]

As Trajan lay dying, nursed by his wife, Plotina, and closely watched by Prefect Attianus, he could at last have adopted Hadrian as heir. Since the document was signed by Plotina, it has been suggested that Trajan may have already been dead.[42] In a telltale sign, it has been discovered that Trajan's young manservant Phaedimus died in his late twenties a few days after Trajan's passing away, in Selinus, and that his body was interred in Rome only twelve years later. As Phaedimus was probably very close to Trajan, perhaps he was killed (or killed himself) for fear of his being posed awkward questions.[43]

 

[SlyDessertFox]

They weren't useful for Commodus, that's for sure. He would've been served better with a book about how holding the empire together.



It's possible that he wanted Hadrian to be his successor for some time, but then changed his mind. Read about the events during and after Trajan's death. It wasn't as clear as you might think.

Spoiler: What we know... and what we don't know

Trajan, seriously ill by that time, decided to return to Rome while Hadrian remained in Syria to guard the Roman rear. In practical terms, that meant that Hadrian was de facto general commander of the Eastern Roman army, something that made his power position as a potential claimant to the throne unchallengeable.[40] Trajan only got as far as Selinus before he became too ill to go further. While Hadrian may have been the obvious choice as successor, he had never been adopted as Trajan's heir. It is possible that Trajan never wanted to commit himself earlier with the appointment of a successor, as the great number of potential claimants made it possible that the definite choice of an heir would be seen as an abdication and therefore dash the chance for a transmission of power in an orderly way.[41]

As Trajan lay dying, nursed by his wife, Plotina, and closely watched by Prefect Attianus, he could at last have adopted Hadrian as heir. Since the document was signed by Plotina, it has been suggested that Trajan may have already been dead.[42] In a telltale sign, it has been discovered that Trajan's young manservant Phaedimus died in his late twenties a few days after Trajan's passing away, in Selinus, and that his body was interred in Rome only twelve years later. As Phaedimus was probably very close to Trajan, perhaps he was killed (or killed himself) for fear of his being posed awkward questions.[43]

Nothing in there suggests Trajan ever wavered from making Hadrian his heir.

 

[Spartacus1224]

They weren't useful for Commodus, that's for sure. He would've been served better with a book about how holding the empire together.

You think a "boring " book on political theory would be any more interesting to an idiot like Commodus that a "boring" book on personal philosophy? Nothing was going to help Commodus be a decent ruler.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Nothing in there suggests Trajan ever wavered from making Hadrian his heir.

It's quite obvious that there is the possibility that the whole thing was set up by Plotina and Attianus.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

That's quite silly. The Meditations are a very mediocre book, there's nothing visionary in it. A really great/good emperor would have written a political manifesto instead of a boring book about philosophy!

And where, @HIM Dogson, is Lucius Verus?

Interesting post. I do find Meditations rather dry reading myself. I agree with you in regard to Hadrian, do you think Quietus would have made a better emperor? I apologize for forgetting Lucius Verus. On another notes, for anyone to answer, how much of the Good Emperors success was due to the foundations Domitian built? Also how bad a ruler was Commodus actually and has he been at all overly demonized?

 

[Skallagrim]

In many ways, this is a question that will get you subjective answers... because it matters what you personally think were good policies.


An attempt at objective answers:

--Nerva: capable, but not particularly "great". Somewhat overrated.

--Trajan: extremely capable, clearly a genius, knew what he was about. Regardless of personal opinions, this was clearly a man he deserves high estimation.

--Hadrian: also extremely capable, also a genius.. but in a different way. Also deserving of high estimation.

--Antoninus: overrated. Regardless of the circumstances he found himself in regardless of his own doing, he failed to act even though he could have.

--Marcus Aurelius: a bit overrated. Not particularly bad, even good... but regarded particularly highly because of his philosophical endeavours, which shouldn't be weighed when it comes to his actual statecraft.


A few far more personal preferences, regarding Trajan and Hadrian:

--Trajan versus Hadrian on geopolitics: I think Trajan was right when it came to Mesopotamia. Keeping it could have permanently weakened Persia. I think Hadrian was wrong about that, and about Britain, too. He should've either taken Caledonia and Hibernia, too... or withdrawn altogether. And I'd prefer the latter. (Free up whatever forces were needed and get them to defend Mesopotamia against the inevitable Persian attempt to get it back.) In any case, Hadrian's solution lost the initiative, and that was less than stellar.

--Trajan versus Hadrian on domestic politics: Hadrian was far superior here. I get that some people might like the rather militarised society Trajan was building (@G.Washington_Fuckyeah's timeline certainly shows that view, what with legalism getting big in Rome and all) but I personally detest it, and think Hadrian had that right. A more "liberal", less rigid society is just preferable... by far.


Regarding marcus Aurelius and his Meditations:

They weren't useful for Commodus, that's for sure. He would've been served better with a book about how holding the empire together.

He also would've been served better by not being a complete bag of dicks, but there you go.

The fact is that Marcus Aurelius was of a philosophical bent. A man can be a statesman and a philosopher, and the fact that he writes a book on one subject doesn't suddenly make that book useless because it's not about the other subject. View a work for what it is: as a philosophical book, it's pretty decent. (Not my personal favourite, but denying the man had useful insights is ludicrous.) If philosophy is not your cup of tea, and you find it boring, that's fine. But that doesn't reflect on his capacities as a statesman at all. Marcus Aurelius might be somewhat overrated, sure... but not because his book wasn't about statescraft.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

It's quite obvious that there is the possibility that the whole thing was set up by Plotina and Attianus.

If you really squint, sure there's the smallest of possibilities that Trajan suddenly wished to go against years of grooming Hadrian for the role. But all of those events can adequately be explained in the context that either Trajan thought he wouldn't die, or wasn't strong enough in his last moments to sign the adoption paper.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

As for Marcus Aurelius, he had to spend his entire reign cleaning up all the cans Antoninus kicked down the road with a heavy dose of empire wide plague to keep things interesting. He deserves more credit than he receives.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

On another notes, for anyone to answer, how much of the Good Emperors success was due to the foundations Domitian built?

Here is something interesting: Nerva was an important person during Nero's regime, maybe even a close friend of this emperor; however, for some reason, the senatorial historians loved Nerva and hated Nero.

So yes, the Good Emperors were dependent on the Flavian and the Julio-Claudian foundation.

 

[James XI]

It's common to get irreverent re: Gibbon and say he moralized...which obviously he did...but taken as a whole it was undoubtedly the high point of the empire. You have 3/5 about whom an argument could be made for greatest emperor, and the other 2 were at worst benign. A reductionist approach I admit, but one I find persuasive.

 

[HIM Dogson]

And where, @HIM Dogson, is Lucius Verus?

Verus? He's an interesting case because he was a playboy and a lech, but when the chips were down he was willing to roll up his sleeves and actually lead. I like him, and if he were the protagonist of a work of fiction I'd like him more, because I think he would be an interesting character.

 

[Avrorrange]

That's quite silly. The Meditations are a very mediocre book, there's nothing visionary in it. A really great/good emperor would have written a political manifesto instead of a boring book about philosophy!



Nope. Nerva was a quite influential emperor, as he founded the alimenta system (although only on a private base, it was Trajan who founded the public alimenta). In some way, the alimenta system was the embryo of a welfare state Rome wanted to be, but Rome never became (Rome couldn't become such a social state given its low technologic and industrial level).



So if you conquer a territory and your successor gives it up, it's your fault that you conquered it in the first place? Trajan receives a lot of criticism because he invested a lot in the Parthian campaign, but the profit of Rome controlling Mesopotamia and the trade with India would be huge. In fact, Rome conquering Mesopotamia would butterfly away the two-front war against both Germania and the Sassanian Empire.

Trajan is still the best Roman Emperor, the greatest in many aspects - even better than the founder of the empire, Augustus, who spilled much blood to come to the throne, including such great men like Cicero, Cleopatra, Cassius or Brutus.

Trajan was a wise and benevolent emperor, the best example for a working monarchy/dictatorship.



Well, Lusius Quietus had crushed the most important Jewish revolts in 117 CE, and the empire was ready to launch a second great offensive against Mesopotamia. With some heroic efforts of a great emperor (like Trajan or Quietus), Rome could then have retained Mesopotamia. Hadrian might have been clever, but he didn't realize the potential of the province of Mesopotamia.

It's not even clear that Trajan wanted Hadrian to become his successor, maybe Trajan changed his mind just before his death, but it was too late then and Trajan's wife made up Hadrian's adoption. Furthermore, he was a quite cruel leader who had the members of the senatorial opposition (people like Quietus who wanted to continue the war against Parthian) murdered (without a due process?).

But on the other hand, Hadrian really cared for the empire, so from a certain point of view, we can consider him as one of the "good" emperors.

However, never forget the mistake of surrendering the strategic initiative to Germania and Parthia!!!

Also, he (re)introduced these ugly beards - poor Antinous...



I agree with you, Antoninus Pius was an idiot.



Well, I already said why I don't like Aurelius - he should have written a more interesting book (like Prophyrogennetos who wrote a book about politics).

But in fact, Aurelius only had to pay for the mistakes of his two predecessors. Antoninus had allowed the Germanic tribes to rise (for example the Marcomanni), whereas Hadrian had withdrawn from Mesopotamia. Now Aurelius had to fight on both fronts, against Germanic invasions and against invasions from Mesopotamia.

As to Commodus, it was the logical choice. Trajan and Hadrian were interested in men, so they couldn't father a son. Marcus Aurelius had a son, and if he hadn't appointed him successor, a civil war could have been triggered even earlier than OTL. Never forget that the "five good emperors" were an "adoptive dynasty" by force and not by choice.

And where, @HIM Dogson, is Lucius Verus?

Didn't Marcus Aurelius want to pick his son-in-law Claudius Pompeianus as his successor?

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Didn't Marcus Aurelius want to pick his son-in-law Claudius Pompeianus as his successor?

No, he wanted to restore the republic with the help of his fellow general...

More seriously: Where did you find this information? Commodus was Aurelius' co-regent (and successor) since 177. Maybe Marcus Aurelius changed his mind afterward, but in fact, he had no other choice. Imagine he had appointed Pompeianus: Commodus could have started a civil war, and Pompeianus would kill Commodus.

And which father wants his son to die?

 

[Avrorrange]

No, he wanted to restore the republic with the help of his fellow general...

More seriously: Where did you find this information? Commodus was Aurelius' co-regent (and successor) since 177. Maybe Marcus Aurelius changed his mind afterward, but in fact, he had no other choice. Imagine he had appointed Pompeianus: Commodus could have started a civil war, and Pompeianus would kill Commodus.

And which father wants his son to die?

There was a claim on wikipedia that M.A offered to adopt Pompeianus and make him a Caesar at one point but the latter declined.You may be right as I've just checked that the claim doesn't have a citation.

Although,it's not the first time an emperor has appointed two heirs.If he appointed Pompeianus a co-heir with Commodus,it will be just like the days of M.A and Lucius Verus running Rome again,with Pompeianus taking the role of M.A. and Commodus taking the role of L.V. If M.A is aware of the deficiencies of his son,I don't think it'd be surprising if he would have tried to find a suitable co-heir to babysit his son.