Roman Emperors

[Esternial]

Caligula. Made his horse a senator, absolute nutcase. His exploits were both amusing and disturbing to read about.

Though of all of Rome's leaders - not just Emperors - Cincinnatus is probably my favorite.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Alright, I'm going to bed, you knuckleheads, don't let me wake up to see anyone having chosen Elagabalus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSC2W8-VaFM

Elagabalus was actually a decent emperor imo.

Are you the one who keeps making those cringy Elagabalus themed comics on tumblr?

Example: http://img05.deviantart.net/2487/i/2012 ... 4pmgg2.jpg

WARNING, PLEASE FIND AN EYEWASH STATION BEFORE READING, I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BLINDINGS, FOR MY NAME ISN'T BASIL II

[Gim]

Constantine the Christian.

[Republic of Greater Cuba]

Aurelian, emperor from 270 to 275, when he was assassinated in a really wasteful and unfortunate murder that the officers themselves came to regret.

At the time Aurelian became emperor, the Southwestern territory that includes the Iberian peninsula and the South of France had been recovered from the Gallic Empire but he still had the Gallic Empire to deal with in Britain and Northern France and the Palmyrene Empire in the Middle East and Anatolia.

In a series of brilliant and rapid campaigns, he reconquered all of what had been lost. The senate voted him the title of restitutor orbis, restorer of the world.

Not bad for a reign of five years in my opinion

[Gim]

Aurelian, emperor from 270 to 275, when he was assassinated in a really wasteful and unfortunate murder that the officers themselves came to regret.

At the time Aurelian became emperor, the Southwestern territory that includes the Iberian peninsula and the South of France had been recovered from the Gallic Empire but he still had the Gallic Empire to deal with in Britain and Northern France and the Palmyrene Empire in the Middle East and Anatolia.

In a series of brilliant and rapid campaigns, he reconquered all of what had been lost. The senate voted him the title of restitutor orbis, restorer of the world.

Not bad for a reign of five years in my opinion

Oh, nice. Didn't know that. No sarcasm.

[The Archregimancy]

The Sassanids destroyed an entire army during the Third Century, IIRC; they were why the reforms were made.

When was this, again? I seem to remember Ctesiphon being sacked several times by Roman legions in the 3rd century after the rise of the Sassanids

Twice.

I suppose that's technically 'several times', but perhaps not the impression you were trying to convey. And even those two examples aren't wholly unproblematic.
Generally, Roman attempts to attack Ctesiphon were fairly catastrophic failures (for what it's worth, the destruction of an entire army that UMN is referring to is almost certainly Ardashir I's victory against Severus Alexander in the 230s).

For the record, the first Sassanian-period sack of Ctesiphon by the Romans was by the otherwise fairly obscure Emperor Carus (r. 282-283 AD), who took advantage of a combination of an internal Sassanian civil war and the absence of most of Bahram II's army on campaign in what's now Afghanistan to take and sack the city without any opposition.

The second time was in 299 when Galerius campaigned against the city. The problem here is that not a single contemporary source from either side records an actual sack. Galerius' campaign was clearly successful, and the likelihood of sack is assumed - though not absolutely proven - by Galerius marching away from the city with the Emperor Narses' harem in tow; but given the politics of warfare in this period that's not absolute proof.

So that's one uncontested sack, and one assumed but not definitively proven sack in the period where you're claiming Ctesiphon was 'sacked several times by Roman legions'. That's perhaps not quite the impression you were attempting to convey.


And the single most successful attack on Ctesiphon was by an extraordinary Roman emperor who isn't even in your poll; that was Heraclius' siege of 627 AD.

[United Muscovite Nations]

When was this, again? I seem to remember Ctesiphon being sacked several times by Roman legions in the 3rd century after the rise of the Sassanids

Twice.

I suppose that's technically 'several times', but perhaps not the impression you were trying to convey. And even those two examples aren't wholly unproblematic.
Generally, Roman attempts to attack Ctesiphon were fairly catastrophic failures (for what it's worth, the destruction of an entire army that UMN is referring to is almost certainly Ardashir I's victory against Severus Alexander in the 230s).

For the record, the first Sassanian-period sack of Ctesiphon by the Romans was by the otherwise fairly obscure Emperor Carus (r. 282-283 AD), who took advantage of a combination of an internal Sassanian civil war and the absence of most of Bahram II's army on campaign in what's now Afghanistan to take and sack the city without any opposition.

The second time was in 299 when Galerius campaigned against the city. The problem here is that not a single contemporary source from either side records an actual sack. Galerius' campaign was clearly successful, and the likelihood of sack is assumed - though not absolutely proven - by Galerius marching away from the city with the Emperor Narses' harem in tow; but given the politics of warfare in this period that's not absolute proof.

So that's one uncontested sack, and one assumed but not definitively proven sack in the period where you're claiming Ctesiphon was 'sacked several times by Roman legions'. That's perhaps not quite the impression you were attempting to convey.


And the single most successful attack on Ctesiphon was by an extraordinary Roman emperor who isn't even in your poll; that was Heraclius' siege of 627 AD.

I was referring more to the Battle of Edessa (and its predecessor, the battle of Barbalissos), and the possible Sassanid victory during Gordian's invasion and Philip the Arab's possible surrender.

[San Marlindo]

Why no option for Justinian?

[Ethel mermania]

Augustus, he was played by Brian Blessed, and that makes him best emperor.

[Endless road]

Marcus Aurelius was a based man.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Marcus Aurelius was a based man.

But he picked Commodus.

I also, of course, dislike his persecution of Christians, but I think everyone can agree that picking Commodus was bad.

[Farnhamia]

Split from the Trump thread, let's talk Rome and Roman Emperors! First question: favorite emperor? Vespasian #1 and if you answer otherwise you're wrong.

Vespasian? The guy who often looked like he was having trouble moving his bowels? Somebody said that about him, maybe Riso. Antoninus Pius was a very nice man, properly polite to me when I visited Rome.

[Astrolinium]

Cato? You mean Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger, that Cato?

That gibbering ignorant half-witted fanatic who thought Rome was still a small hill tribe in Central Italy?

You can't be serious...

I am positively triggered. Legitimately triggered, I'm not even joking.

Cato? You mean Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger, that Cato?

That gibbering ignorant half-witted fanatic who thought Rome was still a small hill tribe in Central Italy?

You can't be serious...

You mean one of the few good Romans left with any guts. Far better than Greek loving layabouts who got fat and soft of heart. Somethings never change, we've the same softness problem today.

"Assuredly you do not love our Cato more than I do. Nevertheless, with the best intent and in the greatest honesty he sometimes does harm to the state; for he gives his senatorial opinions as though he were in the Republic of Plato rather than the garbage dump of Romulus." - Cicero

[Demetland]

Whoever the best emperor was, it certainly wasn't Tiberius.

[Napkiraly]

Elagabalus was actually a decent emperor imo.

Are you the one who keeps making those cringy Elagabalus themed comics on tumblr?

...

You have zero proofs.

[Rio Cana]

Once again its Trajan, the emperor which was honored with a column. (see photo below) The column is that height in order to show the once height of the rock cliff which had to be removed in order to build Trajans new large forum which was the last forum built by the Romans inside Rome. There was no land available inside the inner city except that rock cliff.
Photo - https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/23 ... 23588c.jpg

This shows a diagram of the stairway inside the column.
http://www.mmdtkw.org/RT04-TrajanColumn4.jpg

The Roman Empire under him reach its maximum size.
Map - Even Crimea and Armenia were part of the Roman Empire - http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Articl ... s_Rome.jpg

Edit - Even the Roman Senate considered him the "best ruler". They gave him that title.

While really good at waging war and military things -

Arguably Trajan’s greatest achievement as emperor was not military, though, but political. All his predecessors, after Augustus (LIE), had had difficulty with the fundamental political problem of balancing their three main “constituencies”, that is, the armies, the Senate, and Rome’s civilian population, with often conflicting priorities. Trajan’s predecessors had often ended up hated by the Senate and/or people while relying on support from the military - or toppled by military force if they lost support in that area. Trajan however managed the political feat of gaining support from all those 'factions'. To the army he was a competent, victorious commander-in-chief who looked after their concerns as “one of them”; to the Senate he was an accessible leader who interacted with his former peers in terms of social near-equality; to the general population he was an approachable ruler who spent lavishly on public works and spectacles, and improved the supply of water and grain. That was accomplished by a combination of three factors: Trajan’s personality; real, tangible achievements; and the 'ideology' of his rule, supported by what can be called PR or propaganda. He has been called the first emperor to have governed with anything like a consistent official ideology, or perhaps narrative.

Read - http://worldsocionics.blogspot.com/2017 ... lysis.html

[United Muscovite Nations]

Once again its Trajan, the emperor which was honored with a column. (see photo below) The column is that height in order to show the once height of the rock cliff which had to be removed in order to build Trajans new large forum which was the last forum built by the Romans inside Rome. There was no land available inside the inner city except that rock cliff.
Photo - https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/23 ... 23588c.jpg

This shows a diagram of the stairway inside the column.
http://www.mmdtkw.org/RT04-TrajanColumn4.jpg

The Roman Empire under him reach its maximum size.
Map - Even Crimea and Armenia were part of the Roman Empire - http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Articl ... s_Rome.jpg

Edit - Even the Roman Senate considered him the "best ruler". They gave him that title.

While really good at waging war and military things -

Arguably Trajan’s greatest achievement as emperor was not military, though, but political. All his predecessors, after Augustus (LIE), had had difficulty with the fundamental political problem of balancing their three main “constituencies”, that is, the armies, the Senate, and Rome’s civilian population, with often conflicting priorities. Trajan’s predecessors had often ended up hated by the Senate and/or people while relying on support from the military - or toppled by military force if they lost support in that area. Trajan however managed the political feat of gaining support from all those 'factions'. To the army he was a competent, victorious commander-in-chief who looked after their concerns as “one of them”; to the Senate he was an accessible leader who interacted with his former peers in terms of social near-equality; to the general population he was an approachable ruler who spent lavishly on public works and spectacles, and improved the supply of water and grain. That was accomplished by a combination of three factors: Trajan’s personality; real, tangible achievements; and the 'ideology' of his rule, supported by what can be called PR or propaganda. He has been called the first emperor to have governed with anything like a consistent official ideology, or perhaps narrative.

Read - http://worldsocionics.blogspot.com/2017 ... lysis.html

Uh, he has to give that back to Ukraine

[The New Sea Territory]

Julian the Apostate Philosopher is a personal favorite of mine. His attempt to stop the spread of Christianity, and to counter it with philosophic paganism, sadly came too late. His early death in battle was tragic.

What survives of Contra Galileos is a worthwhile read.

[Aelex]

Based Vespasien for the win, tho I have a liking for Marc Aurèle and Constantin.

[Asherahan]

Sulla was the last great Roman.

I see your a man of culture as well.

[Longweather]

I'm going to go with Justinian I or Alexios I. Justinian for his partially successful renovatio imperii. Alexios for pushing back the decline of the remaining empire and inadvertantly being the catalyst the Crusades.

[Astrolinium]

I'm going to go with Justinian I or Alexios I. Justinian for his partially successful renovatio imperii. Alexios for pushing back the decline of the remaining empire and inadvertantly being the catalyst the Crusades.

The thread said Romans, not Greeks.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm going to go with Justinian I or Alexios I. Justinian for his partially successful renovatio imperii. Alexios for pushing back the decline of the remaining empire and inadvertantly being the catalyst the Crusades.

The thread said Romans, not Greeks.

>Justinian
>Not Roman

You wanna fight, m80?

[Astrolinium]

The thread said Romans, not Greeks.

>Justinian
>Not Roman

You wanna fight, m80?

I joke. Justianian's probably the last Byzantine I would comfortably call "Roman", though.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>Justinian
>Not Roman

You wanna fight, m80?

I joke. Justianian's probably the last Byzantine I would comfortably call "Roman", though.

I'd have to say the Byzantine Empire could be considered Roman until the loss of its Southern territories. And, even after that, there were relics of its Romanness, far more than in Western Europe.