Trajan: Rome Best Emperor

[Peter1469]

Trajan: Rome Best Emperor (http://www.unrv.com/five-good-emperors/trajan.php)

Before forums accepted pics for avatars, I used a Roman coin of Trajan.


Trajan eventually arrived in Rome in AD 99 under circumstances that rivaled a triumphal procession. He entered the city on foot and was greeted by massive crowds.

[Mister D]

Augustus, IMO. Trajan was a good emperor and the right emperor at the right time. He had his faults. He conquered Mesopotamia but overextended the empire in doing so.

I remember your old avatar.

[Newpublius]

It harkens to a day when macro history looked at the great conquerors as somehow worthy of more respect. I took Latin from the 7th grade until the 12th grade and when one does that the Roman history comes with it. Trajan of course brings the Roman Empire to its greatest extent. Now, don't get me wrong, considering the likes of Nero, Caligula etc, Trajan comes off pretty well actually, but we're still talking about a dictator paying nominal respect to the Senate which itself wasn't particularly democratic.

They also look at things like the public works that Trajan built, of course, like the pyramids, people can see that and say, "Great"

Just to make a comparison to Augustus, another well renowned emperor who is said to have found Rome in brick and left it in marble Not entirely true of course, but Augustus definitely employed a fair amount of marble in the public works in Rome. Fantastic until you begin to empathize with the slaves being ground to dust in the marble mines of what was then northern Italy (ie. Carrara)

With respect to conquests, and surely Trajan wasn't unique in this respect, the Roman Empire does reach its zenith. But people forget sometimes that they did this at the point of the gladius. To get the province of Mesopotamia, the Romans marched in and took it from the Parthians.

This zone became a constant bones of contention between the Romans/Parthians and then the Romans/Persians....and if somebody lived there I doubt they would be singing Trajan's praises: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia_%28Roman_province%29

[Green Arrow]

Trajan is definitely one of my favorites, if not my favorite. His conquest of Mesopotamia was brilliant, though I do agree he over-extended the empire. But, all great empires in history over-extended themselves, which led to their downfall.

[Germanicus]

I like Octavian the best. And he is the most impressive.

[Mister D]

Mesopotamia was abandoned by his successor and the frontiers returned to the frontiers of Augustus. They were tweaked here and there but were pretty much final.

[Green Arrow]

Mesopotamia was abandoned by his successor and the frontiers returned to the frontiers of Augustus. They were tweaked here and there but were pretty much final.

Hadrian's main focus was Brittania (always a thorn in Rome's side) and Greece. He also had the Bar Kokhba rebellion to deal with. Honestly, I've always been surprised that he didn't pull out of Dacia, too.

[Mister D]

Hadrian's main focus was Brittania (always a thorn in Rome's side) and Greece. He also had the Bar Kokhba rebellion to deal with. Honestly, I've always been surprised that he didn't pull out of Dacia, too.

Mesopotamia was a real stretch though. That's a long way to project power. It's one thing to march in, fuck some shit up, and leave. That's what the Romans typically did in the Orient. Controlling the area was a serious overreach.

[Mister D]

I will say the Roman military reached its acme under Trajan.

[Green Arrow]

Mesopotamia was a real stretch though. That's a long way to project power. It's one thing to march in, fuck some shit up, and leave. That's what the Romans typically did in the Orient. Controlling the area was a serious overreach.

I agree with that. I think pulling out was a good idea. I wonder if pulling out of Dacia, too, and refocusing all those efforts on Brittania, would have made things different.

[Mister D]

I agree with that. I think pulling out was a good idea. I wonder if pulling out of Dacia, too, and refocusing all those efforts on Brittania, would have made things different.

Brittania, from a strategic perspective, was pretty pointless, IMO. I guess Caesar and later Claudius used it for political gain. In the case of Dacia, the Romans had suffered a defeat in the region around 6o BC. Defeat is something the Romans never forgot or forgave. now that I think about it, an earlier defeat at Parthian hands was probably what made the conquest of Mesopotamia desireable.

There is a interesting general point here: the motive for war isn't always rational. I think moderns tend to lose sight of that. We tend to look for who has something to gain etc. and completely overlook emotions, pride, revenge, and honor.

I love this stuff. :smiley:

[Mister D]

http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/tag/battle-of-histria/

[Green Arrow]

Brittania, from a strategic perspective, was pretty pointless, IMO. I guess Caesar and later Claudius used it for political gain. In the case of Dacia, the Romans had suffered a defeat in the region around 6o BC. Defeat is something the Romans never forgot or forgave. now that I think about it, an earlier defeat at Parthian hands was probably what made the conquest of Mesopotamia desireable.

There is a interesting general point here: the motive for war isn't always rational. I think moderns tend to lose sight of that. We tend to look for who has something to gain etc. and completely overlook emotions, pride, revenge, and honor.

I love this stuff. :smiley:

Oh yeah, me too.

I'd say if I ranked my top 5 Roman emperors, it would be:

1) Trajan
2) Marcus Aurelius
3) Hadrian
4) Antoninus Pius
5) Either Titus or Domitian

[Mister D]

Oh yeah, me too.

I'd say if I ranked my top 5 Roman emperors, it would be:

1) Trajan
2) Marcus Aurelius
3) Hadrian
4) Antoninus Pius
5) Either Titus or Domitian

Can't argue with that lineup.

Titus sacked Jerusalem, right?

[Mr Happy]

I agree with D. Augustus was the best, but Trajan was up there. Also think Constantine I is worthy of a mention for being the first Christian Emperor. Also have a soft spot for Vespasian, but I don't know why....

[Green Arrow]

Can't argue with that lineup.

Titus sacked Jerusalem, right?

Sacked it and destroyed the Second Temple. He was better known as an accomplished general than a statesman, but he did well as a statesman too. It was Titus that completed the Colosseum.

[Green Arrow]

I agree with D. Augustus was the best, but Trajan was up there. Also think Constantine I is worthy of a mention for being the first Christian Emperor. Also have a soft spot for Vespasian, but I don't know why....

Constantine was brilliant. Definitely one of the more power-savvy emperors. He realized that Christianity was growing while paganism was on the decline, and saw Christianity (rightfully) as a unifier.

[Mister D]

Sacked it and destroyed the Second Temple. He was better known as an accomplished general than a statesman, but he did well as a statesman too. It was Titus that completed the Colosseum.

That's right. I think there are references to the siege on some of the Colosseum's dedicatory inscriptions.

[Mister D]

I agree with D. Augustus was the best, but Trajan was up there. Also think Constantine I is worthy of a mention for being the first Christian Emperor. Also have a soft spot for Vespasian, but I don't know why....



Constantine was brilliant. Definitely one of the more power-savvy emperors. He realized that Christianity was growing while paganism was on the decline, and saw Christianity (rightfully) as a unifier.


Good point about Constantine. I guess when you think of the greatest he doesn't spring immediately to mind but definitely a pivotal figure. He actually hated the city of Rome and, if I recall correctly, only visited the city once.

[Mister D]

Funny thing is the greatest period of Roman expansion was during the late Republic. That was what probably doomed it.

[Green Arrow]

Good point about Constantine. I guess when you think of the greatest he doesn't spring immediately to mind but definitely a pivotal figure. He actually hated the city of Rome and, if I recall correctly, only visited the city once.

I'm not certain if Constantine was that way, but I know Tiberius was. Tiberius didn't even want to be emperor.

[Mister D]

I'm not certain if Constantine was that way, but I know Tiberius was. Tiberius didn't even want to be emperor.

Messed with his head, apparently. Creepy bastard.

He expelled the Jews from Rome too.

[Green Arrow]

Messed with his head, apparently. Creepy bastard.

He expelled the Jews from Rome too.

Yeah, Tiberius isn't on my list for a lot of reasons...plus, he gave us Caligula.

[Mr Happy]

Who was the worst? Or gets the worst rap? Caligula?? Nero?? Commodus (thanks Russel Crowe!!)

[Mister D]

I think Caligula should get a little sympathy. What a f'd up childhood.

[Newpublius]

Who was the worst? Or gets the worst rap? Caligula?? Nero?? Commodus (thanks Russel Crowe!!)

its easy to make any given usurper "the worst" -- but that was part and parcel to the inherent political instability in the system (one civil war after another)......so for me the answer is more complex because I'm limiting my answer to more long lived and genuine emperors.

For me, it always comes back to Honorious.

[Green Arrow]

Who was the worst? Or gets the worst rap? Caligula?? Nero?? Commodus (thanks Russel Crowe!!)

Worst in terms of what?

[Mister D]

Worst in terms of what?

Good question. I think newpublius nailed the most important criteria. Who caused the most instability?

[Mr Happy]

Yeah, I meant worst legacy - did most harm to the empire. Caligula would go down as one of the cruelest but probably didn't have too much of an adverse affect on the overall state of the empire...

[Mister D]

Yeah, I meant worst legacy - did most harm to the empire. Caligula would go down as one of the cruelest but probably didn't have too much of an adverse affect on the overall state of the empire...

Right. Some of the Julians were despotic loons but the empire was not put in a dangerous position because of them.

[Green Arrow]

Yeah, I meant worst legacy - did most harm to the empire. Caligula would go down as one of the cruelest but probably didn't have too much of an adverse affect on the overall state of the empire...

Historians love to complain about Caligula and Nero, but I'd put Elgabulus (sp?) at worst. Elgabulus almost destroyed the Roman Empire in just four short years. Just thinking about him makes me angry. So much culture and history could have been lost under his disastrous reign.

[Mister D]

Historians love to complain about Caligula and Nero, but I'd put Elgabulus (sp?) at worst. Elgabulus almost destroyed the Roman Empire in just four short years. Just thinking about him makes me angry. So much culture and history could have been lost under his disastrous reign.

Yeah, emperor at 14? Sheesh...

[Green Arrow]

Yeah, emperor at 14? Sheesh...

He was nuttier than Mr. Peanut, too. Spent more time in elicit affairs (while married to a Vestal, no less) with both men and women than he did governing. The Empire fell to shit.

[Newpublius]

Elgabulus/Severus, this is the inflection point between Classical antiquity and Late antiquity, the crisis of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire almost did collapse and was never quite the same after, but while elgabulus was whacky (I had to google him), Severus really wasn't that bad, but between Severus and his usurper, the basic political instability that was he dominate played out.....20-25 claimants in 50 years. In a sense, that collectively was the "worst emperor"

[Green Arrow]

Elgabulus/Severus, this is the inflection point between Classical antiquity and Late antiquity, the crisis of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire almost did collapse and was never quite the same after, but while elgabulus was whacky (I had to google him), Severus really wasn't that bad, but between Severus and his usurper, the basic political instability that was he dominate played out.....20-25 claimants in 50 years. In a sense, that collectively was the "worst emperor"

Septimus Severus?

[Newpublius]

Septimus Severus?

Alexander Severus.....

[Heyduke]

"Cowards die many times before their deaths"- Gaius Julius Caesar

Don't overlook the obvious. At the age of 25, Gaius Julius was taken captive by pirates, and treated them with contempt the entire time they threatened him. They demanded a 20 talent ransom, but Julius insisted that they demand 50 talents, because he was too awesome to be ransomed for a mere 20. He warned the pirates that he would hunt them down and crucify them, which he made good on. Actually, I think he was taken twice by pirates.

He went to Gaul, and learned from a lot of mistakes, but built up a huge store of gold from the mines, enough to levy a great army. Rolled the dice and crossed the Rubicon and wrested the empire from Pompey, who was no slouch.

Every emperor that succeeded him was a preppy trustfundafarian, as the Sage of Mainstreet would say :wink:.

Anyway, the Romans can bail. They were utilitarian doers, builders, schemers and legislators. Get Heyduke to the Greek. The Greeks were thinkers, and had a bit of hubris.

[Mr Happy]

Caesar was not an Emperor...

[jillian]

Caesar was not an Emperor...
'
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/julius_caesar.3.2.html

[Heyduke]

'
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/julius_caesar.3.2.html

Julius Caesar, it has been said, has become Shakepseare's quintestential cautionary play about America. I like the movie with Marlon Brando.

[Mister D]

Peter1469 your old avatar was Hadrian though, no?

[Peter1469]

I can't recall. It was a Roman coin, and I want to say it was Hadrian....

[Mister D]

I can't recall. It was a Roman coin, and I want to say it was Hadrian....

Pretty sure it was. I have a Hadrian coin and I remember saying that when I saw your avatar. Trajan seems more your style though.