Best Roman Emperor?

Best Roman Emperor?

  • Trajan

    Votes: 18 17.3%
  • Aurelian

    Votes: 11 10.6%
  • Augustus

    Votes: 49 47.1%
  • Marcus Aurelius

    Votes: 6 5.8%
  • Nerva

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hadrian

    Votes: 5 4.8%
  • Antoninus "Pius" Aurelius

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Constantine I

    Votes: 8 7.7%
  • Theodosius I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Vespasian

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Titus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Majorian

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Other? Specify.

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    104
Note:
Roman means for a Western Emperor/unified Empire Emperor, pre-476.

In the East it means before 396 (date of final split). Arcadius will be considered as the first of the ineligible Byzantines.


Undecided about my vote yet. Thinking about it. It is really close between two of them for me.
 
Decided.

narrowly picking Aurelian over Trajan. I picked Aurelian as both seem to have accomplished stupendous things, but Aurelian did so under worse circumstances. No matter how much of a Trajanophile I am... I think Aurelian wins the day.
 
For sheer ability mixed with impact I'd have to go with Augustus. It is true he had enormous quanties of luck and some particularly brilliant men in his camp but it doesn't change the fact that he was able to channel those outside factors into lasting achievements.

For likability on the other hand I'll have to think carefully (though Augustus was far from the worst there either.)
 
This was a problem on the last thread....

by best I mean achievements. Who fixed something in Rome? Who made the Empire bigger? etc. They could be a saint to their fellow man, but if they destroyed Roman power forever then do not vote for them lol.
 
Last edited:
Diocletian - saved the Roman world from civil war after the chaos of Nero. Without him, the Roman Empire would have been very short lived.
 
Diocletian lived two centuries after Nero! Do you mean Vespasian?

Anyway, it's Augustus.

Right : Augustus is the founder, and considering the catastrophic conditions in which he lived, he was a political Genius the kind of which one uncounters only once in 500 years.
 
Aurelian given that he managed to successfully reunite the Empire and that if it wasn't for his work, and that of Deocletian after him, the Crisis of the Third Century would had lasted longer.
 
Decided.

narrowly picking Aurelian over Trajan. I picked Aurelian as both seem to have accomplished stupendous things, but Aurelian did so under worse circumstances. No matter how much of a Trajanophile I am... I think Aurelian wins the day.

I picked Augustus, since it was his political skill that established relative stability in the Roman world i.e. induced the Romans to effectively give up their beloved republic for autocracy--vital under the new circumstances. But I also rank Aurelian very high. I think it was Publius Cyrus who said "anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm." Aurelian held it under the stormiest conditions yet prevailed. His energy and skill brought the Empire back from the brink.
 
Right : Augustus is the founder, and considering the catastrophic conditions in which he lived, he was a political Genius the kind of which one uncounters only once in 500 years.

Lol, I would hardly call conditions then catastrophic, although the period of civil wars (preceding the principate beginning c 27 BCE) had been awful.
 
Diocletian - saved the Roman world from civil war after the chaos of Nero. Without him, the Roman Empire would have been very short lived.


There were massive civil wars after him as well as before. Aurelian saved the Roman world from fragmentation, and also from barbarian incursions. The bulk of the work of ending the third century crisis had already been done before Diocletian, although the defeat of the Sassanids c 298 CE was a great achievement.
 
Lol, I would hardly call conditions then catastrophic, although the period of civil wars (preceding the principate beginning c 27 BCE) had been awful.

What is your standard for catastrophic, then ?

Do you have better than 20 years of civil war ? Except for a giant asteroid striking Italy, I hardly can figure out a worse situation.
 
Don't like Empires so that ruled out Augustus (his uncle is my least favorite ancient person, or favorite person to decorate a Gallic Pike, your choice). Don't like imperialist religions, so that ruled out Constantine.

Liked Marcus Aurelius both in the movies and in his book. Still responsible for his rat bastard son, so no.

Chose Trajan.
 
What is your standard for catastrophic, then ?
Do you have better than 20 years of civil war ?

The period from 49 --31 BCE didn't witness continuous civil war. After Philippi there was a decade of relative peace and Augustus improved matters in Italy.

Except for a giant asteroid striking Italy, I hardly can figure out a worse situation.

Mid third and fifth century history were infinitely worse than the aforementioned period.
 
Aurelian was good in reuniting the Empire, an outcome which was by no means a foregone conclusion when he came to power, but he didn't stop the Crisis of the Third Century, so I can't quite put him on top.

Diocletian did end the Crisis, but the tetrarchic system he set up proved to be rather unstable, and many of his economic reforms ended up damaging the Empire.

In the end, I went for Augustus. He came to power in a situation similar to the third century, but the principate he set up proved to be more stable and effective than the dominate, which puts him above Diocletian IMHO.
 
Top