Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NicholasMaximus, post: 4515546, member: 111966&quot;][USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER] </p><p><br /></p><p>I totally agree that there are no definitive answers, and I don&#039;t have a hard rule on why anyone should be considered emperor. I think each figure should be examined on their own, as a unique case. </p><p><br /></p><p>So for me, the Gallic Separatists represent a break away empire (and a different entity altogether). They broke away from the original empire and there were legitimate rulers in Rome during the same time the Gallic separatists held power. I personally, believe that viewing them as Roman Emperors, would be like granting Jefferson Davis the title of &quot;President of the United States&quot;. But the confederacy was a break away nation, and Abraham Lincoln was the legitimate ruler of the original nation. So Davis doesn&#039;t deserve such a title. </p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps I am too harsh in my evaluations, but I don&#039;t think I would consider Niger to be an emperor either. The way I see it, after Didius Julianus buys the title of emperor from the senate (following the murder of Pertinax) there is great unrest. This unrest leads to Didius being deposed and a power vacuum is created. </p><p><br /></p><p>Niger is claimed emperor by his legions in the east and is certainly a legitimate figure/ candidate for the title of emperor. But there is no true emperor after Didius, until the power struggle is won by Severus.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>But that is just my personal take. As you say, there are no black and white answers here. One of the reasons I love history so much.[/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