Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GinoLR, post: 24777680, member: 128351&quot;][ATTACH=full]1585253[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>On this forum, I sometimes found the expression “good emperors” or “five good emperors”. </p><p><br /></p><p>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 <i>Historia Augusta</i>, etc. It is unknown if he could read Greek (he rarely quotes Greek authors). On which criteria were emperors rated “good” or “bad”? </p><p><br /></p><p>The Julio-Claudian emperors are ill-famed due to Tacitus’ <i>Annals</i> and Suetonius’ <i>Twelve Caesars</i>. 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. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Senate was a staunch supporter of Trajan. Senators had unanimously (as always) voted him the cognomen “<i>Optimus</i>” (the Best), and Trajan was called the “<i>Optimus Princeps</i>” : 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… </p><p><br /></p><p>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). </p><p><br /></p><p>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… </p><p><br /></p><p>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.[/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