My Roman collection took some heavy casualties during the COVID-19 pandemic. I sold around a dozen or so on eBay. Although I made some good contacts in the process — I came to regret it later. Anyway, I’ve just restored my 5-Good Emperors group. I’ve also got some great provincials that I’ll be displaying a bit later.
Fantastic group of denarii, @Deacon Ray! I'm glad you were able to reconstitute that mini-set! I really like that Antoninus Pius. Here's a Pius COS IIII in my numophylacium.
Nice reunification, @Deacon Ray. Your 5 good emperors coins are very beautifully presented. Here is my Trajan denarius I recently picked up, with Victory on reverse also.
Very nice grouping, @Deacon Ray - I have that Antoninus Pius, though mine is not as pretty as yours. In fact it might be a "limes" issue - it is kind of dark and lightweight: Antoninus Pius Denarius (c. 145-161 A.D.) Rome Mint ANTONINVS AVG PIVS PP laureate head right / COS IIII Concordia, draped, standing left holding patera and scepter. RIC 129; RSC 226. (2.51 grams / 16 mm) eBay Aug. 2018
Very nice coins and very nice presentation, @Deacon Ray I have all the 5 good emperors in silver and missing Marcus Aurelius in imperial bronze (hmm...) I think this is an interesting area to develop, due to variety of interesting reverses and the fact that they can be affordable. In the past months I have been starting to wonder if a 12 Caesars set is in fact a good option for me, because I am not sure if for a budget collector some coins are really worth it. Here is my latest coin from a good emperor, a provincial I bought for the portrait and for the reverse - my first one with Mt Argaeus
I do not understand what "good emperors" means. Good for who, good at what? If one had to select 5 US "good presidents", I am sure it would arouse much debate and controversy, at least for the later ones. The Julio-Claudian emperors from Tiberius to Nero are traditionally seen as bad emperors, some even as tyrants. Tiberius: a sociopath; Caligula: a mental patient; Claudius: an alcoholic cuckold; Nero: a mad serial killer. Their successors are not much better: Otho was a debauched decadent, Vitellius a big fat glutton, Vespasian an old miser, Domitian a cruel tyrant. Only Titus and maybe also Galba are considered good, probably because their reign was short. The Roman emperor controlled everything, being in the same time the executive, legislative and judicial power. Like Louis XIV of France he could have said "l'État, c'est moi". How could we explain that a state run by such a gang of freaks w/o any moderating counter power achieved so much and built such a peaceful and prosperous empire extending from Britain to Syria? These Julio Claudian emperors suffer from the bad reputation people like Tacitus or Suetonius gave them. Tacitus and Suetonius lived and published their work under Trajan, who claimed to be the "optimus princeps", "the best emperor". If Trajan was the best, propaganda had to forge a bad image of all his predecessors so Trajan should be seen as obviously the best one, the only one actually worthy of the Empire. But what about Augustus? Criticizing Augustus who created the imperial regime would have been criticizing the imperial regime itself, so Tacitus wisely began his Annals after Augustus' death... Let us not forget that all our sources on the 1st c. emperors are biased. And let us not take into account if an emperor was canonized by the Senate or not, we all know they were systematically divinized when their successor now in charge had been appointed by them: not divinizing them would have directly ruined the legitimacy of the reigning emperor!
Good for coin dealers who are selling them as a package deal, I guess. This group is more affordable than ‘The 5 Worst Emperors Collection’ Great comments @GinoLR —thanks for posting
Deacon Ray, Great photo presentation . GinoLR raises some good points as to who is "good" & who isn't. Doesn't Augustus Caesar deserve a place among the "good" emperors despite some of his family issues ?
"Good Emperors" is the standard term for the five emperors that followed the '12 Caesars' and is not a definitive value judgement as much as a convenient term for the period. Personally, I might prefer a different term but things that have been part of the language for centuries need to be learned. What would you call them? 'Adoptives' is popular for the same group. I am unclear on why they did not include Lucius Verus (not as good as he should have been?). It is obviously a stretch to include Commodus who stopped being good shortly after birth but that would be convenient since he was what ended the 'good' period and introduced us to the 'Severan' period which some people might allow inclusion of non-relatives like Macrinus and the 193 short termers. Nerva (the nose) Trajan (road builder) Hadrian (travelling man) Antoninus Pius (Worked with the Senate better than most) Marcus Aurelius (What reverse would be best for him?) Lucius Verus (wishy-washy?) Commodus as Caesar (hope not realized)
"The five good emperors" is a standard term in popular works of history, especially Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It is easily found by a google search, which turns up several hundred hits, such as this, this and this. It is not unusual for a set in classical numismatics to be defined by a book. After all, many collect "The Twelve Caesars," which is a term popularized by Suetonius. Others have suggested a set based upon chapter 10 of Mary Beard's SPQR, which is titled, "Fourteen Emperors." The five in question were perhaps identified first by Machiavelli: "From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all were good who succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced…Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus had no need of praetorian cohorts, or of countless legions to guard them, but were defended by their own good lives, the good-will of their subjects, and the attachment of the senate." – Niccolo Machiavelli But Gibbon popularized the notion that these five were good. "If a man were called upon to fix that period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the deaths of Domitian to the accession of Commodus." – Edward Gibbon Edward Gibbon also said that under these men, the Roman Empire "was governed by absolute power under the guidance of wisdom and virtue." This period of 84 years is generally regarded as the high point of the Roman Empire, at least after Augustus, but what is uncertain and a matter of ongoing debate is whether the five emperors were personally responsible for the situation and the accompanying prosperity enjoyed throughout the empire at the time or if they were simply the beneficiaries of the Pax Romana, inaugurated by Augustus in the early part of the 1st century CE. In other words, historians have wondered whether anyone in power during those years would have enjoyed the same rewards.
If nothing else, the peaceful transfer of power from one emperor to the next was good for the Empire.
Beautiful set! Personally among my favorite of the "more affordable" Roman subsets - so many options in terms of portrait styles and themes! I started branching out and trying to collect family members too. Not sure I realized what I was getting myself into...
I like the way you’ve photographed the whole group in one shot @Finn235 . That does it! I’m totally inspired !
Thanks for the answer to my questions, especially @dougsmit and @Roman Collector I understand that this term of "the 5 good emperors" is used mostly in the Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere, a 2 centuries old tradition established on Gibbon's authority. Well... there have been several generations of scholars, historians, classicists since Gibbon's time, and our vision of the Roman imperial regime and of the individual emperors may have evolved. Adoptive emperors seems more accurate, but Tiberius and Nero were adopted, too. I prefer the dynastic option, like in Egypt. Julio-Claudian dynasty (from Caesar or Augustus to Nero), Flavian, Antonine, Severian dynasties. After 235 it is another story, I admit.
A denarius I like for each of the five: Nerva: Trajan: Hadrian: Antoninus Pius (and his Caesar): Marcus Aurelius: Plus Lucius Verus:
