Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;The Meat man, post: 24777994, member: 135271&quot;]Interesting posts [USER=128351]@GinoLR[/USER] and [USER=83845]@Curtisimo[/USER]. You both make some good points!</p><p><br /></p><p>Personally, I don&#039;t think it&#039;s too difficult to judge which emperors were the &quot;better&quot; ones. I would say the best emperors were those whose rule was marked by relative peace and prosperity, and those who ruled with relative restraint and humanity. It&#039;s a slightly different question than who was most effective, although that obviously plays a role as well. Also, the word &#039;relative&#039; is key; we have to judge them in the context of their own times.</p><p><br /></p><p>Using that criteria, I think that Augustus would definitely place on the list, as well as Vespasian. As [USER=83845]@Curtisimo[/USER] pointed out Titus and Nerva reigned too briefly to really get a feel for their style but it seemed promising. Of the remaining &quot;Five Good Emperors&quot;, probably Antoninus Pius most deserves to be on the list, but they all seemed to have ruled well and fairly. It was, after all, the high point of Roman power and influence. </p><p><br /></p><p>Septimius Severus was an effective emperor but I wouldn&#039;t place him on a list of the &#039;good&#039; or &#039;best&#039; emperors - and certainly not Caracalla, who in my opinion takes the prize for Worst Emperor Of All Time.</p><p>I also would probably give a pass to Diocletian, even though he was one of the most effective emperors since Augustus. Under the Dominate, things were much different and it becomes harder to judge. Constantine was pretty effective, and did some good things, but again I would hesitate to place him on the list as well. I don&#039;t know much about the period after Constantine.[/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