Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NicholasMaximus, post: 4513593, member: 111966&quot;]Can I name every emperor (even just those I consider to be legitimate) off the top of my head? Absolutely not. </p><p><br /></p><p>I totally agree with your overall point, and I am sure my opinion varies greatly from many on who should make the list and who shouldn’t. In regards to the two figures you mentioned, I would absolutely not consider either of them to have been legitimate emperors. </p><p><br /></p><p>Silbannacus, is such a mystery that we arent even sure what year he potentially made a claim. But making a claim, even if you manage to get a coin made of you, is not enough to be considered an emperor. If I run into your home when you are on vacation, and claim it as mine, and then you get home, beat me down and toss me to the curb. Did I ever own your house? Best case scenario for him, is he managed to take over for an extremely short period of time after a power vacuum, but never actually ruled. And that cant even be proven. </p><p><br /></p><p>Domitian II might be an even murkier figure and the ancient sources never named him as an emperor. Even if he did make a claim, he was seemingly in the breakaway Gallic Empire, I don’t count any of those figures. My list goes “Valerian- Gallienus- Claudius Gothicus - Quintillus and then a personal favorite, Aurelian.”&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I actually find the argument made by another member yesterday, that Justinian should be considered the last Roman emperor to be quite fascinating. Really, anything after Diocletian’s introduction of the tetrarchy, is a bit muddled because of all the moving pieces. </p><p><br /></p><p>Then you have the difference of opinion on the Byzantine rulers, post 476 AD.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in