The greatest Roman Emperor?

Who, in your opinion, was the greatest Roman Emperor?

  • Augustus

    Votes: 38 33.0%
  • Claudius

    Votes: 4 3.5%
  • Vespasian

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • Trajan

    Votes: 23 20.0%
  • Hadrian

    Votes: 6 5.2%
  • Aurelian

    Votes: 4 3.5%
  • Diocletian

    Votes: 3 2.6%
  • Constantine I The Great

    Votes: 12 10.4%
  • Justinian I

    Votes: 4 3.5%
  • Heraclius

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • Leo III

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Basil I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Basil II

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • Alexius I

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael VIII

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Constantine XI

    Votes: 4 3.5%
  • Other (please state)

    Votes: 5 4.3%

  • Total voters
    115
I hope the Constantine XI choice is a joke.
To play the devil's advocate...

Prior to becoming emperor, Konstantinos XI did manage to stabilise the Morea as Despotes and IIRC conquered the crusader duchy at Athens. In his situation, there really wasn't anything that any leader could have done; it's impressive that he did as much as he did. Then of course, when Konstantinopoulos fell, he could have fled to Italy or beyond, but he stayed and (supposedly) charged the breach, dying with his empire in a fashion that (if true) would be heroic. There's a reason he's the Greek ethnomartyr to this day.

... Not that I personally think that any of that should qualify him for the greatest emperor, but he did manage to gain lasting symbolic importance.
 
The other day, I came by chance upon this Turkish animated historical movie depicting the fall of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks. The makers of the film managed to portray the character of Emperor Constantine XI as such a feckless douchebag.
 
Just because everyone overlooks him: Constantine IV. He really turned things around and went on the offensive against the Caliphate. He managed to achieve peace on all borders at the same time at one point. Not to mention holding a pretty successful Ecumenical Council. If it hadn't been for his gout and early death from dysentery, I'm fairly certain he'd have achieved far greater things.


Sargon

And putting up with the nickname "Copronymous" must have taken some patience too... :D
 

General Zod

Banned
Trajan without a doubt. Had he lived, he would have conquered Parthia, and his statesmanship skills made him a role model throughout the Middle Ages.

August doomed the Roman Empire when he gave up the conquest of Germania, and Hadrian squandered Trajan's conquests. Constantine and even more so, that bastard Theodosius sold out the Empire to the bloody Christian zealots.
 
Last edited:
Trajan without a doubt. Had he lived, he would have conquered Parthia, and his statesmanship skills made him a role model throughout the Middle Ages.

August doomed the Roman Empire when he gave up the conquest of Germania, and Marcus Aurelius squandered Trajan's conquests. Constantine sold out the Empire to the bloody Christian zealots.

I thought that it was Hadrian that gave up Trajan's conquests in the east?

Marcus Aurelius at one point expanded beyond the Danube to protect the Empire from the Marcommani and the Sarmations.

The one guy I hate more than Constantine, was that bastard Theodosius. Guys like him wouldn't have messed up matters like they did without guys like Constantine. Valens, Arcadius, Honorius, the Constantinian brothers, Valentinian III whom killed Flavius Aetius, and the rest, mental midgets.
 

General Zod

Banned
I thought that it was Hadrian that gave up Trajan's conquests in the east?

Marcus Aurelius at one point expanded beyond the Danube to protect the Empire from the Marcommani and the Sarmations.

The one guy I hate more than Constantine, was that bastard Theodosius. Guys like him wouldn't have messed up matters like they did without guys like Constantine. Valens, Arcadius, Honorius, the Constantinian brothers, Valentinian III whom killed Flavius Aetius, and the rest, mental midgets.

You are right about Hadrian and Theodosius. The latter spineless coward *apologized* to that murderous zealot bastard Ambrosius who threatened excommunication because he had dared punish the Christian lynching mobs that burned synagogues, killed pagans (poor Hypatia, anyone ?) and caused riots. Saint, my ass. :mad::mad:
 
As long as we're on the subject of good emperors, I think Alexander Severus deserves better recognition. Also I think Domitian deserves honorable mention.

Best emperor? Probably Augustus followed by Marcus Aurelius. The model of a philosopher-king, he deserves to be remembered for Meditations alone.
 
Well, the Five Good Emperors are aptly named, and Trajan is my favourite.

Ofcourse, some earlier (Augustus and Claudius) and some later (not my area of expertise) Emperors also had their good reigns.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure, but I'm leaning toward Augustus. He kept th empire together during the intial instability after the death of Caesar.

Constantine?

No way. The guy single handedly corrupted the Christian faith for the next thousand years or so.
 
Constantine? No...Theodosius, maybe. Constantine only did one thing in Christianity's favour- the Edict of Milan, which made it legal to practise it.
And the Council of Nicaea was more to prevent civil unrest, than out of any personal conviction on his part.
The myth that Constantine was a devout orthodox Christian and instituted Christianity as the Roman state religion is one of the most horrendous lies in Western history.

Almost as horrendous as the slander levelled against Nero. The real man was far from a tyrant and a monster; he was a good Emperor who tried to lessen the power to the Senatorial elite, instituted economic and land reforms, and genuinely cared for the plight of the Roman citizens. But his good name is clouded with libel from the pen of Suetonius.

Still, Nero's not THE BEST, even in my opinion. I'd say that goes to Trajan or Hadrian, maybe Marcus Aurelius.
But not Augustus. He seems too perfect, which makes me think there's definitely something up there, and the records about him are more propaganda than history.
 
All these guys and not one mention of Rome's greatest emperor.

Where's Caracalla?

Well the guy was a lunatic anyway... In all his reign he did only 2 good things... Constitutio Antoniniana (and i am not that sure that it was a good thing...:D) and the building of the Baths...
 
Despite the claimed continuity, I think the Roman Imperators were in a whole different class from the Byzantine / Roman Basileis. The former ruled a huge Mediterranean empire, while the latter merely ruled a tiny fragment of said.

For example, when comparing Basil the Macedonian with, say, Nero, how many people do you think will pick Basil? Sure, he ruled during the greatest reversal since the time of Justinian and founded the dynasty that would bring about the high point of later Byzantium. But that's still small peas compared to the best of the Imperators.
 
1. Heraclius- He took the Empire from the brink and brought it back to glory, if Islam didn't rise who knows how far he could have gone.

2. Augustus- Saved the Empire from the republican civil wars that would have torn it apart, if he had conqured Germania and neutralized it as a threat i'd be writing this in some form of bastardized Latin.

3. Aurelian- Poor Aurelian is always overlooked, even though the guy was only Emperor for five years he was able to subdue the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires. Aurelian also tried to give the Empire one god that everyone could worship without abandoning their old gods, in my opinion this would have butterflied away a wholly Christian Empire and given the West a fighting chance at surviving.

4. Trajan- I always really liked Trajan, he always seemed to be exactly what the Romans wanted in an Emperor, not only did he conquer Dacia he totally shamed the Parthians, he sacked Ctesiphon then deposed their King and put a puppet on the throne, that alone makes him a shoo in for top fine, and thats not even mentioning all the building projects he undertook.

5. Michael VIII- Michael was the last great savior of the Empire, he took his tiny little rump state and basically re-established the empire, true he founded the last dynasty of the empire, but i always wondered what he could have done with more resources and a more cooperative west.
 
1. Heraclius- He took the Empire from the brink and brought it back to glory, if Islam didn't rise who knows how far he could have gone.

2. Augustus- Saved the Empire from the republican civil wars that would have torn it apart, if he had conqured Germania and neutralized it as a threat i'd be writing this in some form of bastardized Latin, and he'd be number one on this list.

3. Aurelian- Poor Aurelian is always overlooked, even though the guy was only Emperor for five years he was able to subdue the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires. Aurelian also tried to give the Empire one god that everyone could worship without abandoning their old gods, in my opinion this would have butterflied away a wholly Christian Empire and given the West a fighting chance at surviving.

4. Trajan- I always really liked Trajan, he always seemed to be exactly what the Romans wanted in an Emperor, not only did he conquer Dacia he totally shamed the Parthians, he sacked Ctesiphon then deposed their King and put a puppet on the throne, that alone makes him a shoo in for top fine, and thats not even mentioning all the building projects he undertook.

5. Michael VIII- Michael was the last great savior of the Empire, he took his tiny little rump state and basically re-established the empire, true he founded the last dynasty of the empire, but i always wondered what he could have done with more resources and a more cooperative west.
 
I personally would say Trajan as well, because he was the one who expanded Rome's territory to its maximum size, was a great commander and popular Emperor who gave back to the people.
 
Top