Your favorite Roman Emperor!

Please provide your favorite Roman Emperor, why, and a coin depicting the emperor or a coin issued during his reign.

Since I really don't own a Trajan coin, who is my personal fav, I'll let the experts do it.

I'm really curious.

Thx in advance!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Augustus (Octavian) was a genius. (63 B.C.-29 A.D.) Other than that, Julian the Apostate, or Vespasian were the best in my opinion. I would argue that Caligula was the worst, atleast morally.

Here is a coin of Augustus.

 

(not my work, but very interesting information about Augustus)


Augustus, no doubt, was one of the greatest emperors. The greatest? Possibly... but it's debatable. But to really understand why Augustus is held in such high regard you have to understand the context within which he lived:

Shortly before Augustus the Roman government (a "republic" that was basically ruled by rich men) was going through a serious crisis: corruption which lead to serious civil disorder.

This corruption was rooted in their ever expanding territory which concentrated more and more wealth and raised the bar of risks and rewards for those that played the very dangerous game of Roman politics.

Several powerful and ambitious politicians of this age (the Grachi brothers, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Ceasar, etc.) competed with each other in less than legitimate ways to control the power of Rome. Sulla was able to conquer Rome and declare himself dictator. Marius did the same. Pompey, Crassus and Ceasar formed the not so secret First Triumvirate (which was basically a political alliance where the three men consolidated their political power to help each other essentially hijack and control the Roman government), Ceasar sacked Rome and declared himself dictator, etc.

These ambitious politicians and their actions created huge amounts of civil disobedience. It soon became clear that the problem was that the Republic itself was not capable in its existing form to control the vast territory, populations and wealth that they had rapidly acquired over the last several decades.

Enter Augustus: The adopted heir of Julius Ceasar he was no different than any of the ambitious politicians that came before him. He completely disregarded the laws of the republic to achieve his own personal goal: to become sole ruler of Rome. He was able to achieve this eventually when he finally defeated Ceasar's right hand man Marc Antony and became dictator at the ripe age of 31!

Augustus is remarkable because unlike the other politicians that came before once he gained power he was able to keep it. Augustus was a masterful politician in that he shared just enough power with the senate (rich people) that assassination attempts were few and far between, he also created a public figure that was humble and generous to the people. He always denied that he was a king or dictator, instead he called himself, "first citizen" or Princeps.

The end result is that peace did follow. Rome was still an aggressive power but no major campaigns for additional territory were undertaken. There was no civil war again for 100 years from between his victory over Antony in 30 BC until 69 AD when Nero died. Naturally peace improved trade and economy for Rome and it's provinces. He implemented several reforms for the better treatment of provincials (foreigners under roman rule), reduced corruption and made many improvements to the city of Rome itself.

But Augustus had a dark side too. Some argue any great ruler does. He kept close watch over his friends and enemies, not hesitating to murder those he saw as threats. He killed Ceasar's 10 year old son. He banished his daughter to a island prison for the later portion of her life. He killed his best friend's son (Agrippa Postumas). He was no doubt the aggressor in his civil war with Antony.

These are but popular examples that represent what was no doubt something of a police state ruled by arbitrary whims of Augustus, but disguised as legitimate law and Roman tradition. That was truly Augustus greatest "achievement".

 

Ill do something different. My favorite emperor to read about & I feel is under appreciated is Gallienus. He is the guy in my avatar under my username.

To read about him just use the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallienus

My favorite "controversial" emperor is Elagabalus. Just a google search will yield you many interesting stories on that sick *uc*

My coin/image of him.

 

nero,he burned rome!!!

 

The countermark is Nero but the coin is Nero Claudius Drusus (a different person).

 

trajan is my fave. he had the love of the people. i'm sure there are those that opposed him, i mean, what politician isn't opposed. but the general concensus is that he was top 5. doesn't the old saying go "luckier than augustus, better than trajan."?

 

I am just getting into ancients so I don't know much about Emperor coins yet.
During the reign of the Emperor Constantine the great, Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.
Although many question Constantine's motives toward Christianity. Some say he helped it, some say he ruined it. I do not have enough knowledge about Constantine to debate it. So I will not.
As far as coins go the Constantine coins are very common, inexpensive and easy to obtain.

 

Septimius Severus


Septimius Severus 193-211 AD
Him:
Became emperor the old fashioned way - he killed people
Ruled effectively for 18 years
Founded dynasty of interesting (but not admirable) people
Interesting history
Adopted himself into family of Marcus Aurelius correcting the Commodus error
Still failed to solve his problem with his worthless son repeating the Commodus error

His coins:
Many types; some interesting
About as cheap in silver as anyone
Common ones are common but rare ones are rare - many dealers don't know the difference
Multiple mints not openly marked so you need to know the styles - most people don't care
About as cheap in silver as anyone
Available in decent style and well made but many coins are neither - most people don't care
I bought my first one while in high school (this coin)
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac6.html

 

Really appreciate this thread by the way. It prompted me to get the rise and fall of the Roman Empire on audio.

 

Constantine the Great. 'Cos he was the first emperor-christian.

 

Its hard to pick one, but I guess mine would be (for the moment) Antoninus Pius. Though I guess I could have picked Caracalla :devil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoninus_Pius

 

here is the mother of these mother#$%$ZZ^&^*^Z* !!!!

 

No pic, (its me, hey), but I might go with Julian II. Well, I kind of have to, I named my son after him.

Yes, he wasn't able to push back the Christian tide, but tried. I don't have a problem with Christianity, (I am quaker, and love all religious history), but loathe the history they destroyed. Julian is much more of a "what if" emperor. What if he didn't die and was able to defeat the Sassanids and restore the tolerance for all religions. What if Rome was able to incorparate the Persian state and not have to waste so much energy and treasure on such constant wars? What if he preserved the philosophy schools and prevented the mass burnings of all non-christian writings? Great promise, all cut short by an early death.

In truth, he was probably 20 years too late to turn the tides, but I believe most historians wish he could of, and possibly we would still have the millions of books lost to the fires of both Christian and Islamic zealots over the centuries. I am not saying I wish to worship the pantheon of Gods, I wish to be a quaker yet have access to all of this knowledge now lost.

Chris

P.S. here is MY Julian.

 

Early Christian writers maintain that Philip was the first Christian emperor & Otacilia the 1st Christian Empress.

 

Whilst I share a similar passion for the coinage of Septimius Severus to Doug I also have a strong soft spot for Probus.

During a period of miltary crisis in the empire he is a soldier who was raised through the ranks by various emperors. He was appointed as a military tribune by Valerian and later distinguished himself under Aurelian and Tacitus. He campaigned successfully in Gaul, which he commemorates in coins from Lugdunum. He put down three usurpers, Julius Saturninus, Proculus and Bonosus. He reached a stage in his reign that when his troops were not dealing with incursions that he needed to find work for them to do. He put them to construction of buildings, defences and bridges, drainiing land and even planting vineyards. This impacted badly on the morale of his troops so much so that some of his troops delared Carus emperor. He sent troops to engage with them but they defected. When his own troops heard this they also changed sides and murdered him.

I think of him as being too successful for his own good.

He minted a huge variety of coins with a number of reverse types and busts. They are often of good quality and his Ants. are easily within the reach of just about any collector.

My coin below was one of those mentioned above, minted in Lugdunum upon his victorious return through Lugdunum on his way back to Rome after defeating the northern tribes in Gaul.



Martin

 

I share Martin's enjoyment of Probus which probably explains why I have three pages on his coins (unfortunately the largest dates to the period when I was compressing photos too much for the benefit of dial up modem owners). However, Probus has some faults. Many of his most interesting and rare coins are enough different from normal that there is little chance of buying one as a sleeper while many of the common ones look special and get sold by ignorant dealers as more special than they are. RIC covering Probus is badly outdated and he will not be included in the upcoming revision of RIC V part 1 (Probus is in part 2). That leaves literature not in English which is more of a problem for some of us than others. Probus dates to the period where coins were silver washed and many high grade examples are ugly because of the pattern of their partial silvering. Some of us can ignore this better than others. Probus is not well recorded in history so we don't have vast opportunities to study his reign. I'm sure he was an interesting guy but details are sketchy.

What I do like is that Probus seems never to have worn the same suit (of armor) twice. The variations in his portraiture are many. He struck from many mints but relatively few of them had any originality in their choice of types so your collection ends up being a comparison of the same thing interpreted several ways. That can be good or bad considering your outlook on it. His coins include the two coded series that I consider cool but I suspect half the owners of them neither know nor care why the extra leters are on their coins.

Today, I consider Probus relatively overpriced but that is because there were large hoards of his disbursed about 15 years ago so most of my coins were cheaper and made me have trouble with the prices most dealers ask for lesser coins today. I believe that goes back to my basic preference for silver coins (Severans) over silver washed coins including Probus. There is no doubt he makes a great collecting specialty.

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/probus.html
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/equiti.html
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac19.html



Are you cut out to collect Probus? I show a coin of Serdica that some will say is just like the one Martin showed. If you see the two coins as too much the same to want both, you probably will not be a Probus collector. If you are amazed at how different they are is so very many ways, you might want to consider a Probus collection specialty.

 

That's my favorite thing about Probus. And his suits showed a lot of swagger!

Can I vote for two? Rather, one father-son team? Among the late emperors, Magnus Maximus and Flavius Victor. A lot of fighting for short-lived rule as usurpers (about a year for the son, Victor, maybe five for the father, Mag Max), after which Theodosius cut their ambitions, and their lives, short...

Mag Max above, Victor below

 

Was Magnus Maximus the first Christian emperor who executed a Christian for being the wrong flavor of Christian? I don't have that reference but seem to recall it on his resume.

 

Matt:

That is a really contoversial belief. Being tolerant and not persecuting a group does not necessarily make one a member of that group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab_and_Christianity

Using that criterion, Severus Alexander may have been the first "Christian Emperor." He even included JudeoChristian figures of David and Jesus in the gods he venerated in his personal shrine of respected deities.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13743a.htm

As you know, Constantine's conversion was at his deathbed. Nevertheless, he was not only tolerant of the Jesus movement, he promoted and actively supported it after the battle of the Milvian Bridge.


guy