Roman Emperors

[Napkiraly]

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.

Definitely by Alexios I though it was Roman only in name.

[Astrolinium]

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.

Sure. It was absolutely a direct continuation of the Roman government and state. But culturally and, really, in terms of its government as well, by the late sixth century, I would say it had already mutated into something that I don't feel quite comfortable calling "Rome", in the same way that I wouldn't feel comfortable referring to the Republic of France as "The Frankish Kingdom". Technically, there's absolutely a direct continuity between the two, but something, nonetheless, is too different for them to really be the same thing.

[Conserative Morality]

On what basis?

By any objective measure Julian was failure.

There are no objective measures without criteria, and any choice of criteria are subjective. I didn't specify the meaning of 'best' (and, in fact, phrased it inconsistently as 'favorite' in the OP and 'best' in the poll - mea culpa) for that very reason.

He was an Augustus for just over three years, and sole emperor for less than two. He was also politically incompetent.

His one great success was proving himself to be a better general than anyone anticipated, though it's worth stressing that he only reached the summit of unchallenged power because Constantius II died of natural causes on his way to depose Julian as Augustus of the West and named the latter - the sole surviving male member of his family - his successor.

While many of his attempted anti-corruption reforms were well-intentioned, his failure to acknowledge that the structure of the Empire had changed in the last 200 years led him to idolise and attempt to emulate an idealised government structure of the 2nd century. His short-sighted rigid adherence to his political ideology managed to rapidly alienate just about everyone who might have formed some sort of reliable power base. Even before his move to Antioch and his cack-handed (though again, almost certainly well-intentioned) attempt to deal with the Antiochian famine, he'd managed to systematically alienate just about everyone except his core support in the Western Army and a scattering of pagan philosophers - and that was before his failed religious reforms.

Those religious reforms, which is just about the only thing most people remember him for, were an abject failure. They not only continued to undermine core support in the Eastern Empire - by now by far the wealthiest and most powerful part of the Roman state - but vanished without a trace on his death. They weren't even embraced by the majority of pagans; his core support for his reforms seems to have been a tiny minority of Attican neoplatonists whose abstract ideas on paganism and attempts to co-opt some aspects of Christianity was rejected by most pagans, not least because 'paganism' wasn't a single religion or ideology. Attempting to make it so while imposing Christian discipline on its organisation was itself politically misguided because it likely alienated as many pagans as it did Christians.

His death was itself the direct result of spectacular political and military misjudgements. His plan for the invasion of Persia and capture of Ctesiphon was almost bizarrely hubristic. Leaving aside the total lack of provocation from the Sassanids, Julian could only rely on the Western army; his political incompetence had alienated the Eastern army, the officers of which were predominantly Christian, and which would inevitably bear the brunt of the workload for the invasion. His strategic decisions in the invasion were poor, leaving his army isolated deep within enemy territory, and unable to either besiege or storm Ctesiphon. His lack of caution and refusal to appoint the sort of bodyguard typical to post-Diocletian emperors led directly to his death during a Sassanid attack on the camp.

His reign was as brief, and as effective, as that of a transient soldier-emperor of the crisis of the third century. The only reason we remember him at all was because of the attempt to turn back the Christian tide and make his ascetic version of paganism the state religion

PROOF THAT EVEN GODS MAKE MISTAKES WHEN THEY WALK AMONGST MEN

Rather than seeing him as a transient soldier-emperor in the vein of the Illyrian clique or any number of fourth or fifth century coup successors, I see him as the last spark of a dying age.

As Hypatia of Alexandria is to the history of science and philosophy, Julian is to the history of the Roman Empire. He was great not because of what he achieved, but because of what he represented, or represents to us in the modern day. A final ember cast forth from the guttering fire, bright and brief and beautiful, regardless of the darkness that followed. Not that I think if Julian had succeeded in everything he'd set out to do that the Roman Empire would have RETURNED TO GLORIES LONG PAST, but let me have my poetic license here

[Liriena]

Elagabalus, yo!

[Washington Resistance Army]

Elagabalus, yo!

Literally the worst

[Liriena]

Elagabalus, yo!

Literally the worst

You only say that 'cause your jealous of his legendary sluttiness.

[Cosmopoles]

I can't decide between Heliogabalus during their transgender hooker roleplaying phase and the floating head of Justinian.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Literally the worst

You only say that 'cause your jealous of his legendary sluttiness.

Na, he just can't compare to the glory that is Trajan or Majorian.

[Napkiraly]

Julian was a profligate that deserved his fate. All Roman leaders after Sulla were profligates that should have been crucified. Rome died with Sulla. It was replaced by some Hellenic bastard trash heap in its place.

[Liriena]

I can't decide between Heliogabalus during their transgender hooker roleplaying phase and the floating head of Justinian.

Yaaaaaaaaaas!

[United Muscovite Nations]

Literally the worst

You only say that 'cause your jealous of his legendary sluttiness.

We say it because he did literally nothing except bring shame to the Imperial title.

[Minzerland II]

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

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

Eh. All men have their flaws, including Cato.

[Napkiraly]

"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

Eh. All men have their flaws, including Cato.

Name one flaw of Charles Gordon. One.

[Astrolinium]

Julian was a profligate that deserved his fate. All Roman leaders after Sulla were profligates that should have been crucified. Rome died with Sulla. It was replaced by some Hellenic bastard trash heap in its place.

Ridiculous. What evidence do you have that Rome was any more meaningfully Hellenized in 77 than it had been in 79? Or in 43 than 143? Or that a proclivity for Hellenism in art meaningfully altered the Roman moral character, rather than it being a result of the Roman character having been altered by the bounties of empire? At least side with actual Romans and go with the death of Scipio Aemilianus, or the end of the Third Punic War. Sulla's death wasn't a turning point, it was another drop in the cascade that was the end of the Republic.

"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

Eh. All men have their flaws, including Cato.

I suppose we can't expect much of a Stoic.

[Longweather]

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.

Definitely by Alexios I though it was Roman only in name.

Which still makes it Roman.

Alexios delayed the further decay of the remnants of the empire after it got wrecked by the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia. He may have been Greek instead of proper Roman, but he's the only Emperor after Justinian the Great that I actually like. He basically pulled a Justinian but an order of magnitude less... with a worse position.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Definitely by Alexios I though it was Roman only in name.

Which still makes it Roman.

Alexios delayed the further decay of the remnants of the empire after it got wrecked by the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia. He may have been Greek instead of proper Roman, but he's the only Emperor after Justinian the Great that I actually like. He basically pulled a Justinian but an order of magnitude less... with a worse position.

Uh, what about Basil II?

[Minzerland II]

Eh. All men have their flaws, including Cato.

Name one flaw of Charles Gordon. One.

I stand corrected, some men don't have any flaws.

Eh. All men have their flaws, including Cato.

I suppose we can't expect much of a Stoic.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Astrolinium]

Name one flaw of Charles Gordon. One.

I stand corrected, some men don't have any flaws.

I suppose we can't expect much of a Stoic.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

That sort of unyielding strictness creates many flaws.

[Minzerland II]

I stand corrected, some men don't have any flaws.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

That sort of unyielding strictness creates many flaws.

Ah. I, personally, consider their 'unyielding strictness' to be their greatest strength, but to each their own.

[Astrolinium]

That sort of unyielding strictness creates many flaws.

Ah. I, personally, find their 'unyielding strictness' to be their greatest strength, but to each their own.

Nah, man, Skepticism all the way. You can have strong principles while still believing that morality is relative and nothing is necessarily real.

[Minzerland II]

Ah. I, personally, find their 'unyielding strictness' to be their greatest strength, but to each their own.

Nah, man, Skepticism all the way. You can have strong principles while still believing that morality is relative and nothing is necessarily real.

But nah, I have to disagree. We should leave this to another thread, though.

[Cedoria]

Play the world's smallest violin.

I wouldn't call Caesar or Pompey a couch layabout. Cato I will grant was brave in his suicide, but it was mostly the Optimates who were the couch generals...

And of course, being brave in suicide didn't help much, would've been better to be more brave while he was alive. And being brave in defense of a foolish cause looks more like stupidity.

I don't think you understand why he committed suicide. Cato killed himself because Caesar offered to pardon him, which, if he accepted, would be a tacit admission of Caesar's legitimacy as, practically, Dictator Perpetuo, this would contradict Cato's convictions, which he was steadfast in. People like Cato because he is admirable, someone who's worthy of striving towards.

In response to your initial post: Gibbering? That's, frankly, hard to believe. Cato was described by Plutarch as having countenance in speech, Cicero even described him as eloquent. Perhaps you think Cato is foolish when you say 'half-witted', which, to some extent, he was, because he certainly was not stupid.

I'm fully aware of all that.

I was using gibbering in a hyperbolic manner... But even Cicero often got tired of Cato droning on and on about Roman virtue... Calling him an ignorant and slow-witted fanatic is not far from the mark.

[Minzerland II]

I don't think you understand why he committed suicide. Cato killed himself because Caesar offered to pardon him, which, if he accepted, would be a tacit admission of Caesar's legitimacy as, practically, Dictator Perpetuo, this would contradict Cato's convictions, which he was steadfast in. People like Cato because he is admirable, someone who's worthy of striving towards.

In response to your initial post: Gibbering? That's, frankly, hard to believe. Cato was described by Plutarch as having countenance in speech, Cicero even described him as eloquent. Perhaps you think Cato is foolish when you say 'half-witted', which, to some extent, he was, because he certainly was not stupid.

I'm fully aware of all that.

I was using gibbering in a hyperbolic manner... But even Cicero often got tired of Cato droning on and on about Roman virtue... Calling him an ignorant and slow-witted fanatic is not far from the mark.

I don't really take that as stupidity, tbh, no matter the cause.

So? I don't think that changes my point. Cicero still described him as eloquent, which would make him anything but gibbering, no matter how you use it. 'Ignorant'? No. I'm sure he was fully aware, just simply unconcerned. He chose what he wanted to believe, chose to be what he wanted to be, and chose who and what he would fight. It's a very human thing, even among our best and brightest, to do; that is to say, interpret the world around us through the way we so wish. I don't take fanaticism as particularly negative per se, tbh. I'll admit that Cato was slow of comprehension, but, it is told, what he learnt he kept in memory forever, which I think is far more important and crucial. Plutarch explains this in his Life of Cato the Younger, the specific text is as follows:

When, accordingly, he came to study, he was sluggish of comprehension and slow, but what he comprehended he held fast in his memory. And this is generally the way of nature: those who are well endowed are more apt to recall things to mind, but those retain things in their memory who acquire them with toil and trouble; for everything they learn becomes branded, as it were, upon their minds. It would appear, too, that Cato's reluctance to be persuaded made his learning anything more laborious. For, to learn is simply to allow something to be done to you, and to be quickly persuaded is natural for those who are less able to offer resistance. Therefore young men are more easily persuaded than old men, and sick folk, than those who are well, and, in a word, where the power to raise objections is weakest, the act of submission is easiest. However, we are told that Cato was obedient to his tutor, and did everything that was enjoined upon him, although in each case he demanded the reason and wanted to know the why and wherefore. And, indeed, his tutor was a man of culture, and more ready to reason with a pupil than to thrash him. His name was Sarpedon.

[Imperium Centralium]

The true Emperor of Rome was its people, the ones who had built it; these names we know of are merely figures and representations of particular periods in time.

ok that was pretentious

[The Archregimancy]

Which still makes it Roman.

Alexios delayed the further decay of the remnants of the empire after it got wrecked by the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia. He may have been Greek instead of proper Roman, but he's the only Emperor after Justinian the Great that I actually like. He basically pulled a Justinian but an order of magnitude less... with a worse position.

Uh, what about Basil II?

Leo I, Justinian, Heraclius, Leo III, Basil I, Leo VI, Romanus I, Nicephorus II, John I Tzimiskes, Basil II....

All of them belong on a list of potential greatest Roman Emperors; but then Conserative Morality's always been consistently clear for years now that he's a Flavian fanboy, so I doubt he counts the Eastern Empire after the death of Theodosius I.