On this forum, I sometimes found the expression “good emperors” or “five good emperors”. According to Wikipedia, this notion was first coined by Machiavelli who cited not 5 but 6 “good emperors” : Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius. Why not? But Machiavelli was a man of the 15-16th c. and his knowledge of Roman History relied on ancient Latin authors only, like Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, the Historia Augusta, etc. It is unknown if he could read Greek (he rarely quotes Greek authors). On which criteria were emperors rated “good” or “bad”? The Julio-Claudian emperors are ill-famed due to Tacitus’ Annals and Suetonius’ Twelve Caesars. Tacitus was a senator who wrote under Trajan while Suetonius was a direct collaborator of this emperor. Both were close friends with Pliny the Younger whom Trajan made a senator, and who wrote his famous Panegyricus in praise of this emperor. The Senate was a staunch supporter of Trajan. Senators had unanimously (as always) voted him the cognomen “Optimus” (the Best), and Trajan was called the “Optimus Princeps” : Best Prince or Best Emperor. Therefore, any published historical work should be in conformity with the official Party’s line. Any biography of an emperor who had reigned before Trajan should be severe criticism because, officially, Trajan had to be seen as the best emperor ever. Nerva should be praised too, of course, because he was the one who had chosen and adopted Trajan… This is probably the main reason why Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, his short-lived successors, and Domitian, are described as sociopaths, psychopaths and tyrants. Even Augustus and Vespasian are not perfect according to their biographies by Suetonius, but these emperors had been divinized by the Senate and could not be criticized too severely because it would have been seen as impiety (the Roman equivalent of blasphemy). Modern people are not senators like Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Cassius Dio; they have no link with Trajan’s and Hadrian’s administrations like Suetonius. Praising Trajan, the one who adopted him and the one he adopted, is not our duty. As 21st c. people we are free to question the official Party’s narrative of the 110s and 120s. Were Nero, Domitian, Commodus actually such bad emperors? I am convinced that if we could know the point of view of the average Roman citizen, who didn’t care about the Senators’ prejudices, the story would be very different… When we consider our modern presidents or prime ministers, who should we call the “good presidents”? It would surely start unending arguments… I’m sure it’s the same for Roman emperors.
If one wants to make value judgments on Roman emperors I think it is more useful to abandon the loaded term “good” and substitute “effective.” In that light there are obvious stand outs who were clearly effective, despite whatever other defects they may have had from our modern perspective. My list of effective emperors from Augustus to Diocletian. Augustus Tiberius Claudius Vespasian Trajan Hadrian Antoninus Pius Marcus Aurelius Septimius Severus Aurelian Diocletian Titus and (maybe) Nerva could have been effective emperors but their careers were too short to come to a definitive conclusion. In some ways I think the stereotype of the “5 good emperors” has a lot of merit to it. The majority of these men were obviously effective autocrats.
Antoninus Pius, effective? Nothing happened under Antoninus Pius. He had a new wall built in Britain north of Hadrian's wall, but it was not a real wall (a mere ditch) and was soon abandoned. The only thing we can say is that under Antoninus Pius the empire was at peace and prosperous. Boring... And why not Caracalla? He made one of the most important laws in all Roman history, the Antonine Constitution giving every free inhabitant of the Empire the Roman citizenship. Under Caracalla the empire evolved from a group of cities and nations under the hegemony of a city-state, Rome, to a large country (from Britain to Saudi Arabia) whose citizens shared the same status and had the same laws.
The boring part is often the most important part. Arguably, the most important part of Augustus’s reign wasn’t the dramatic civil wars, but the methodological ordering of affairs over the next “boring” 40+ years. If Augustus had died in 29 BC their would have been a return to chaos. Antoninus Pius did not need to fight dramatic wars or make big changes because the two emperors before him were competent and left the state in good order. Instead he provided almost a quarter century of stability. If Marcus Aurelius is to be believed, Antoninus Pius was a very conscientious ruler who took his job seriously. High praise from MA. Caracalla was really only in charge for 6 years after his fathers death. Even if we set aside all the ancient sources as biased in their condemnation, it is hard for me to see how Caracalla should be considered effective. He created a financial crisis by raising the pay of the soldiers to unsustainable levels. He responded by issuing a coin (the Antoninianus) that was valued at 2x a denarius but was only intrinsically worth 1.5x. This accelerated inflationary pressure. So he was economically ineffective in my view. On the military front he had mixed success. He stabilized the Danube region but overextended himself into Parthia with little benefit. The army was in a bad situation upon his assassination. On the social front, he sacked his own city of Alexandria for making fun of him. He also murdered the only viable candidate to succeed him in the case of his death, Geta. This meant that the state was thrown into uncertainty after he was killed. Would Macrinus have dared to plan his assassination if he knew a grown and popular successor was ready to avenge the act? For me this inability to think long term keeps him squarely out of the effective category.
Interesting posts @GinoLR and @Curtisimo. You both make some good points! Personally, I don't think it's too difficult to judge which emperors were the "better" ones. I would say the best emperors were those whose rule was marked by relative peace and prosperity, and those who ruled with relative restraint and humanity. It's a slightly different question than who was most effective, although that obviously plays a role as well. Also, the word 'relative' is key; we have to judge them in the context of their own times. Using that criteria, I think that Augustus would definitely place on the list, as well as Vespasian. As @Curtisimo pointed out Titus and Nerva reigned too briefly to really get a feel for their style but it seemed promising. Of the remaining "Five Good Emperors", probably Antoninus Pius most deserves to be on the list, but they all seemed to have ruled well and fairly. It was, after all, the high point of Roman power and influence. Septimius Severus was an effective emperor but I wouldn't place him on a list of the 'good' or 'best' emperors - and certainly not Caracalla, who in my opinion takes the prize for Worst Emperor Of All Time. I also would probably give a pass to Diocletian, even though he was one of the most effective emperors since Augustus. Under the Dominate, things were much different and it becomes harder to judge. Constantine was pretty effective, and did some good things, but again I would hesitate to place him on the list as well. I don't know much about the period after Constantine.
The criteria for good and bad Roman emperors and British kings have changed. The “good ones” are those who conquered territories and could hang on to them. The “bad ones” often lost territory, but there were a host of other ways they could go wrong. I have read some articles that have defended Nero. Some of the stuff, like the claim he used Christians as human torches was not true. He also didn’t set Rome on fire and tried to help the refugees of that blaze after it occurred. He seems to have been a decent emperor when he had and heeded good advice. His biggest problem seems have been that he was not able to ply his favorite profession, that of a poet and entertainer. That was what he really wanted to do in life. As for some others, I think that Caligula and Caracalla were monsters. I also can’t see how Tiberius makes the good list. He spent a considerable part of his reign in a self imposed exile. So far as British kings are concerned, John was probably the worst. I also don’t care for Edward II who allowed his homosexuality to dominate his rule. I don’t have a problem with gay people. Edward, however, lavished gifts on his favorites to the detriment of the rest of the British population. Mary I is also low on my list. She burned almost 300 people at the stake because of their religious beliefs.
