Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cherd, post: 8081022, member: 24754&quot;]Aemilian is actually another good example of what I&#039;m talking about. His story is not much different than the stories of the other people that you listed, however, the difference is that he consistently appears on lists of &quot;Roman Emperors&quot; whereas the others do not. Is there some critical threshold that Aemilian crossed that qualifies him for the list? Or is it all arbitrary and just a matter of degrees and personal opinion?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>True, the list is long where the distinction between usurper and emperor was determined by who was the last man standing. But, Severus and Thrax ruled for years and were generally understood by the populous and governing bodies to be the emperor over that time.</p><p><br /></p><p>This can&#039;t really be said for Thrax&#039;s &quot;successor&quot; Gordian I, and especially his son Gordian II. They consistently appear on lists of emperors, but they were just a blip on the radar while revolting against Thrax and being defeated/dying 3 weeks later. Again, unless they crossed some threshold that would separate them from all the others, then I don&#039;t understand why they make the lists.[/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