The Best of Five Good Emperors

Who is the best of 'Five Good Emperors'?

  • Caesar Marcus Cocceius NERVA Augustus

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Caesar Marcus Ulpius Nerva TRAIANus Augustus

    Votes: 42 48.8%
  • Caesar Publius Aelius Traianus HADRIANus Augustus

    Votes: 20 23.3%
  • Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus ANTONINUS Augustus

    Votes: 8 9.3%
  • Caesar MARCUS AURELIUS Antoninus Augustus

    Votes: 15 17.4%

  • Total voters
    86
Yes, it was a joke. Heard Elagabulus could throw down a pretty mean drag show!!
Wasn't Heliogabalus the Mama's Boy who joined a rather odd cult? (sort of like a Roman Akhenaten)

I'd say Trajan. Antoninus Pius was a great guy, but unfortunately hasn't made much of an impact on (the perception of) history, and Marcus Aurelius was quite good as well but kind-of ruined that by perhaps not choosing the best successor. History's written by the (eventual) victors and so our view of Commodus is biased, but it would be safe to say he was rather sub-par a choice.
 
Last edited:
Good Emperors.

Wasn't Heliogabalus the Mama's Boy who joined a rather odd cult? (sort of like a Roman Akhenaten)

I'd say Trajan. Antoninus Pius was a great guy, but unfortunately hasn't made much of an impact on (the perception of) history, and Marcus Aurelius was quite good as well but kind-of ruined that by perhaps not choosing the best successor. History's written by the (eventual) victors and so our view of Commodus is biased, but it would be safe to say he was rather sub-par a choice.
Elagabulus brought a Syrian cult with him to Rome. He is more known for his "wild" sexuality. The Mama's Boy emperor was his successor, Alexander Severus.
 
So...Nerva get the least votes, huh...?
I feel sorry for him...he was the one who started 'Five Good Emperors'...and founding Nerva-Antonine dynasty in the first place...
He was an EXTREMELY good old man (for the points that I mentioned in the OP), he never selfishly thinking about gained money and fame for himself when he was an emperor...
Plus, if it wasn't because of Nerva, there would be no Trajan, no Hadrian, no Antoninus Pius, and no Marcus Aurelius...
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Heliogabalus the Mama's Boy who joined a rather odd cult? (sort of like a Roman Akhenaten)

I'd say Trajan. Antoninus Pius was a great guy, but unfortunately hasn't made much of an impact on (the perception of) history.


Isn't that an argument for Pius rather than against him?

Trajan's reign was full of sound and fury, but how much did it all achieve in the end? Most of his conquests were soon abndoned as untenable, and even the ones that were kept (Dacia and Nabataea) went down the drain as the empire's problems increased. Pius, OTOH, went 23 years without needing to fight anyone.
 
Mikestone makes an excellent argument for Pius and against Trajan, though Durant's history makes it a point Trajan was also a builder in public and economic terms (although not on the level of any of the other Emperors, I think) and personally very aminable and accessible to even the most common of subjects.

Granted, even if he was that, he preferred war anyway. :p

I voted Trajan, but in retrospect number two goes to Pius than Hadrian for continuing the latter's peace and prosperity without any of the twilight years' grief over Antinous.
 
Top