Favorite Roman Emperor or Imperator

Antisemite? Really? I do not recall any actions Trajan had versus the Nabateans, the Arabs, or other semitic tribes.

Oh, you meant he was anti-Jewish? Maybe you should be a lot more careful with the word "semite" since it is not the same as Jewish.

I don't need to defend Trajan, but you have to remember the Jews were a violent group who had killed Roman soldiers and disturbed the peace twice in the very near past in Trajan's era. He had every right to be wary of that group. What other group in the Roman empire during this time period had openly revolted and killed Romans TWICE?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If you were a Jew or a Roman of the early Second Century AD you most certainly would have differing views of Trajan. But we have the benefit of history so we judge based on what we know of the history. Imagine what people might say 2000 years from now about our leaders of today (and I do NOT want to get into a political discussion here so leave it at that). It's hard to put ourselves in the mindset of anyone living during that period, what with our "modern" way of viewing morals, character, etc. Even the "monsters" of Roman history (Caligula, Caracalla, Nero, etc) are hard to judge IMHO.

 

Human beings are greedy by nature, and it can be argued that any government is prone to imperialistic tendencies, but if you run rough-shod over native peoples in their own territory, you certainly can't expect them not to fight back. Sure, the Jews killed Romans. So did the Gauls and Britons and Germans. History is one big blood bath.

 

I used to like Constantine - he is often heralded, among other things as being religiously tolerant, progressive, intelligent and a 'good' Emperor for re-uniting the Empire, but the more I read about him the less I liked him, he had many flaws.

Diocletian was far from perfect but I like what he tried to do with the Tetrarchy, it was a sound idea that only failed due to a few untimely deaths and later rulers greed - I guess I would pick Diocletian.

 

Just wondering....

a)How many people weren't racist at the time period?

Racism was a FACT OF LIFE back then!

b) Trajan had a reason to hate Jewish people

c) Hadrian was NOT as bad as Caligula....

d) Antonius Pius was great, but he had great historians... that's why he looks like he did almost everything right!

e) Thanks for posting your opinion!

 

Judging from what I've read, the Romans considered anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen a barbarian, meant only to be conquered and subjugated. Various Caesars may have entertained more antipathy toward one group of barbarians than another, but the Romans in general were equal-opportunity elitists.

 

I understand sir, I was simply pointing out in Trajan's time Judea was the most openly hostile zone in the Roman empire. Therefor, any actions of the emperor needed to also be viewed in that light.

Trajan's policies today may not be looked at favorably depending upon your background, but in context I do not view them as arbitrary. Harsh maybe, but that was the nature of the world back then. I believe every Roman emperor it can be found of had harsh policies in one way or another.

If Trajan had disproportionately picked on a group of people who HADN'T had major insurrections against Roman rule, there might be more of a case. If he had institute the same policies against the Gauls or Britons or Germans in that same period, I would have said those were harsh since they had NOT had two major insurgencies against the Romans in the near past.

 

You have read correctly.

They were equal-opportunity elitists...

However, most did have certain Gaulic Tribes that they liked, as you inferred.

 

Constantine I has always been a controversial figure - notice that I don't use the sobriquet "the Great." The more you read about him, the less great he gets.

What I'd like to know is what REALLY happened in the Crispus/Fausta business. Some authors claim Fausta falsely accused Crispus of rape, so Constantine had him executed. Then when the nature of the false accusation came to light, he had Fausta boiled to death. (Some authors say suffocated to death in an overly-hot bath, but that pretty much sounds like a euphemism for boiling to me.)

If Fausta's accusation was indeed false, then why didn't Constantine reinstate the good name of Crispus, a son that had been dear to him for so long? There's got to be more to that story. Enquiring minds need to know!

 

Btw I didn't mean to be overly argumentative EricL, I just dislike the use of the term semitic if the person really means Jewish. I dislike how too many people do not know semitic refers to a large swath of people, not just those in Judea.

You are free to have your own opinions of course, but I think that through studying of history Trajan and Hadrian are on the whole regarded as much more fair rulers than many others. Read about Elagabalus, Commodus, Gaius, and some others, then compare their actions versus Trajan and Hadrian.

Besides, Trajan and Hadrian had some of the most fabulous Roman coins ever produced, and that is what really matters, right? Although, I still would like to have a Emessa stone issue of Elagabalus.

Back on topic, I think my top five list would be:

1. Trajan
2. Julian, (for potential)
3. Octavian
4. Julius Caesar
5. Diocletian

Marcus Aurelius would have made the list, save for him breaking the tradition passed down to him, and instead handing over power to his son.

How about a "Worst Emperor or Imperator" list?

1. Elagabalus
2. Commodus
3. Gaius
4. Valentian III
5. Didius Julianus

 

My favorite is probably Antoninus Pius. I just think as Rulers go he was probably the most beneficial to the people and what appear to be his ethics in governance fit closest with what we think of as beneficial even today. Its the same today...most of the bad ones get a lot of attention because of the stories (true or false) about their bad behavior but the good ones arent any fun because they were just good administrators.

The only other I would say is Agrippa, one of the greatest Roman IMO...he wasnt emperor but he was greater than Augustus IMO...

I also like Julian because he was somewhat honest and straight forward...we can read his thoughts as he put them down for all to read and they read like a person truly writing what he was thinking...like his letter to the people of Antioch or his little rant against the Christians.

 

I know this is off topic, but I had to look up the latin saying in Drusus' header, "Pecunia non olet". It translates "money does not stink" and is is ascribed to the Roman emperor Vespasian regarding his imposition of a Urine Tax in Rome. What I found facinating is that Vespasian's name still attaches to public urinals in France (vespasiennes), Italy (vespasiani), and Romania (vespasiene).

Sorry for straying off topic.

 

No need to be sorry...
This type of off topic I love to see!

 

Brilliant. The imposition of taxes do best when placed upon items with inelastic demand. Vespasian was a brilliant administrator! Not many things more inelastic than that.

 

As a way of explanation, Vespasian's tax was not on the man who used the urinal or cesspool, but on the industries that used the urine, i.e. tanneries and laundries (helped make white clothes whiter).

 

The government doesn't need to tax my pee. I'd be happy to send it all to them.

 

Aw bummer, I thought it was a brilliant idea. Pretty similar to today, a man cannot take a pee without some government agency looking for money.

 

In the case of Vespasian, it was taking ​the pee in particular that was a problem. Leaving it there would be fine.

 

Oh, Ardatirion reminded me of Claudius...also one of my favs but it could just be he became a very sympathetic figure after I read I, Claudius and as much as I read about the real man, he will always be poor uncle Cl-Cl-Claudius...

<----

 

Very true. I like the man, as much as you can like a Roman emperor who has been dead almost 2000 years. However, how he got suckered in with that wife of his.......ugh. I am glad Nero off'ed her.