Who is your favorite Roman Emperor

My top 3:

1. Gordian III
2. Severus Septimus
3. Hadrian


what about you guys?

stainless

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

1. gordian III (mind you i haven;t had the funds to buy a new coin of his in a long while)
2. Marcus Aruelius (his images are always very bold on the coins I see of his)
3) augustus (he was the adoptive son of julius what more could u ask for?)

 

I really enjoy looking at your collections..I find them thrilling...
I do not collect any of them but my Fav is...Marcus Aruelius

Keep up the nice work guy's...

RickieB

 

copycat...lol...Just kidding


stainless

 

ha purhaps we like him for the same reasons mine being he's sort of a mystery emperor who was around my age (and his coins aren't overly expensive lol)

 

Augustus ~ father of the empire.
Marcus Aurelius~ The last of the old roman augustus.
Constantine ~ Greatest augustus after the division of the empire.

I love Empress Theodora she had some balls.

 

Emperor Spock

Julius Caesar

Nero

Constantine ( just in case you dont like my first entry)

 

I have to go with Vespasian and Trajan

 

For entirely non-numismatic reasons:
1. Antoninus Pius - had a long, prosperous, and peaceful reign. You know its good when, in an overview Roman Civ course, the professor only says. "He was a good Emperor, nothing really bad happened, and Rome prospered under him.:
2. Trajan - extended the empire as far as it would ever be, adding the provinces of Dacia and, for a brief time, Mesopotamia.
3. Marcus Aurelius - essentially the same person as Antoninus Pius, only better. And with infinitely worse timing: plagues, famines, and barbarian invasions ravaged the empire during his reign. In my opinon, his only mistake was the return to hereditary rule.

If you were to ask which emperor had the greatest concern for his subjects, I would venture to guess Domitius Domitianus, a usurper in Egypt in 296 and 297 AD. By reforming the coinage of Egypt from the monolothic tetradrachm-only standard, he attempted to free the province from the total economic domination of the central government, thereby greatly improving the lot fo even the average Egyptian.

 

Worst Emperor~ Caligula and Nero

 

One has to wonder to what extent both Seutonius' bias and the succeeding Flavian dynasty's propaganda has influenced this view of Nero. He was actually quite popular among the people of Rome at the time, no doubt because of his large gifts of "bread and circuses".

 

My guys were already picked (one of them wasn't Nero.)
One was Vespasian because I like a guy who isn't too big headed to put his own boots on.

 

1. Augustus
2. Claudius
3. Vespasian

 

1. Augustus Caeser
2. Julius Caesar

rzage

 

1. Avgvstvs 2. Marcvs Avrelivs 3. Probvs

 

Antoninus Pius is by far the BEST emperor. I think he was the one with the best head on his shoulders and the fact that so many after tried to be like him and failed miserably....he was far and away the best of the Good emperors...he stands out because he doesnt stand out for cruelty and all the crazy things he did. He DOESN'T stand out because he was simply a very good administrator of the empire...this is boring to many...there is no juicy gossip. He had a high regard for life, very few people died, he did not hold treason trials, he was introspective, humble, etc... It hard to find a bad word spoken about him...maybe he drank more than he should at parties with friends. I think Marcus Aurelius was probably closest to Pius but all others who bore the name Antoninus didnt come close.

What was there to like about Gordian III? He was just a puppet? A face to put on coins.

I also like Postumus. I think he was very important to the survival of the empire whether Gallienus would admit it or not. By breaking away and starting the Gallic Empire he could act unilaterally against the barbarians and he was a buffer between them and Rome...that and he never once attempted to take the whole empire, he only seemed to want his own little Gallic empire and was happy not to be in Rome (or maybe he was just too busy)...either way I like the picture I get when reading about him.

I like a lot of the much maligned self made emperors as well like Maximinus, Claudius II, Aurelian, or Probus.

Lastly I like Julian II

I think the greatest roman ever was in no way Julius Caesar (not an emperor)...it would be Gaius Marius (also pre empire)...another self made man.

 

Well, He drove away the Persians out of Mesopotamia...didn't live to long..IMO..Not the best, but good.

stainless

 

The height of his fame must have come the day after he burned rome and aquired the main plaza and surrounding villas to make his own grand palace and a giant statute to himself.

 

Again, based off Seutonius. But undoubtedly, he did use large portions of the city to build his palace.

 

I dont think there could never be a definitive answer as to whether he did that or not. Fires were common in Rome as one could imagine...he may have just taken the opportunity to annex the burned areas for his Golden House. Like Caligula, I DO believe he deserves his place amongst the truly bad emperors. I dont believe that Caligula did a lot of the things attributed to him, he was much maligned as was Nero. I think they took already poor performance by spoil princeps and added some gory bits and perversions they could not have known were true or false. While I think recording History in early Roman Imperial times were the best of their time when it comes to reporting facts (who fought whom and such basic info), I also think many often reported every rumor, every bit of here-say, and often expressed their strong bias. Much like today....but much worse in that there are some that modern historians have simply written off as a reliable source with any real value as history. One must always remember that the Julio-Claudians were not only the first imperial family, but they were the final death blow of the Republic...something much loved by many who were writing at the time.