Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cherd, post: 8081812, member: 24754&quot;]It&#039;s not really a matter of belief, in a lot of cases success was literally the determining factor that made the distinction. Severus&#039; status as having been an emperor is pretty firm, whereas Niger&#039;s is debatable. Like you said, they both started from the same place, the difference is that Severus won. In fact, the real difference is probably as mundane as Severus having had a starting point closer to Rome <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie12" alt="o_O" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>I asked the question because I was curious about how various lists of &quot;emperors&quot; were determined, because there tend to be people on the list that, for all that I can tell, are no different from others that are firmly categorized as failed usurpers. This led me to assume that there was some distinguishing factor (an official document, Senate confirmation, etc) that was used to draw the line. If so, then I wanted to know what that was.</p><p><br /></p><p>My &quot;opinion&quot; about what would make a &quot;real&quot; emperor would, I assume, align pretty closely with the opinions of others (might be a faulty assumption).</p><p><br /></p><p><u>Here are some things that, on their own, do not make a person an Emperor IMO</u>:</p><p>-Calling yourself an emperor</p><p>-Having an extreme minority of the population call you an emperor</p><p>-Being on a coin with a crown on your head</p><p>-Being named co-emperor by dad when you are 10 years old then dying at 11</p><p><br /></p><p><u>Here are some things that do make a person an Emperor IMO:</u></p><p>-Having a strong majority of the Empire acknowledge the fact that you are emperor</p><p>-Ruling long enough to have even made it to Rome in one piece</p><p>-Have a leadership role in something other than fighting your rivals, like making decisions pertaining to taxation, building programs, law making, etc, etc</p><p><br /></p><p>If you apply these criteria, then the list gets whittled down quite a bit. It may not be technically correct based on certain criteria, but I feel that this type of list would be a better representation of the rulers that actually played the role. People would get a better feel for the actual history of the leadership if all the fluff and footnotes were removed.[/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