Who is the greatest Roman Emperor?

[Alexander I]

In this thread, I've included my top ten Roman Emperors, (in chronological order for the poll). In your opinion, who is the greatest? Why?

I chose Marcus Aurelius because of his considerable contributions to philosophy and government as well as his military exploits.

[Eli]

It's pretty hard to overshadow Augustus. The length of his reign, his young age at the start of his career, the peaceful transition from a shattered Republic to the Principate.

[Eli]

The passing the title to Commodus by Marcus Aurelius prevents him from holding the "greatest" title IMO. Commodus was his son, and M. Aurelius couldn't be who he was without being at least a reasonable judge of character. He couldn't have expected Commodus to be a good Emperor, and still he chose him as his heir, making a sentimentality more important than the well being of the Empire.

[Will9]

Constantine for reuniting the Empire and not dividing it again.

[SlowwHand]

Marcus Aurelius

[Ekmek]

Vespasian.

Augustus I almost picked but the Republic was in shambles and they were ready to line behind someone for stability.

Vespasian kept it alive. Not only did he had to deal with a 'vietnam' in judea that was exacerbated by ethnic strife, crime, etc (made Iraq look tame) he had to fight a civil war and deal with a cold-war of sorts against a Parthian Empire. Imagine if Vietnam (or this Iraq war) the US was also fighting a civil war on the scale of 1860 and in a major cold-war with the Soviet Union. Tough times and Vespasian pulled it off.

Have a nice day!

[BeBMan]

Nero, but only when played by Peter Ustinov

[Wernazuma III]

I voted Vespasian for consolidating the Empire after the decay under Nero and subsequent troubles. I also love his prosaic nature and dry humor ("Pecunia non olet"; and "Vae, deus puto fio" - Dear, I think I'm becoming a god. Really 1st classy last words).

Augustus is a close second, mnaybe I just didn't pick him in order to get someone else into the debate.

Diocletian not, he failed in his most important task: There still are Christians wherever I look.

Marcus Aurelius - hardly. I'm not a true friend of philosophical navel-gazing and after all, Marcus Aurelius is the best example of why: What is all this self reflection good for when you choose Commodus as your successor...

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Marcus Aurelius - hardly. I'm not a true friend of philosophical navel-gazing and after all, Marcus Aurelius is the best example of why: What is all this self reflection good for when you choose Commodus as your successor...

Well Commodus was certainly not a good emperor, but he wasn't nearly as bad as Joaquin Phoenix's rendition in Gladiator.

[Bosh]

Aurelian? The amount of **** he had to deal with dragging the Empire back from the brink is astounding...

[Ecthy]

There was only one good emperor and that was the one who the office was made for, the only time circumstances were in favour.

[molly bloom]

I chose Hadrian, who pulled back from the unrealistic boundaries set by Trajan's exploits in Mesopotamia, and to this day has some nifty masonry to his name.

He also suppressed the Jewish Revolt and replaced Jerusalem with Aelia Capitolina...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/hadrian_gallery.shtml

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by BeBro
Nero, but only when played by Peter Ustinov

Claudius, when played by Derek Jacobi!

[Wycoff]

I don't mean to turn the History forum into my own personal book club, but I've come to realize that my knowledge of Roman and Byzantine history is woefully inadequate and I'd greatly appreciate any recommendations for quality sources. I'm familiar with Gibbon, of course, but other than that I'm basically ignorant.

Thanks in advance.

(It goes without saying that I didn't vote in this particular poll)

Thanks.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Marcus Aurelius - hardly.

Marcus Aurelius - the most utterly different.