Who is the most underrated Roman emperor?

Roman imperial history

You are here: »Forum» The Roman Empire »Roman Imperial History

Archive topic in the forum: The Roman Empire

Hall oils, since there has already been a G-booklet on the emperors recently, I think this thread is still missing: D Namely: Which Roman Emperor do you find exciting and why? Whose performance is underestimated today, whose overestimated? Which was the craziest of them all?: D
Submitted by Jschmitt on February 10th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
A good topic :), I'll start then. I find especially Augustus and Trajan interesting. The first was just 'the first emperor', the second a gifted strategist. What drove these men is very exciting. Antonius Pius (138-161) is probably underestimated, because through his wise policy Rome had good finances and peace to show in many places. In professional circles he is considered one of the best and most prudent emperors. The achievements of Constantine, who probably preferred the new religion Christianity primarily for reasons of power politics, are perhaps overestimated. : rolleyes: (Vll. but only, he has already achieved something important;)) Many people argue about the title 'Craziest Emperor' (who wouldn't go crazy if he rules 'the world'), but the (double ) Krone clearly belongs to Nero and Commodus. ;)
Submitted by woesch on 02/11/2008 at 16:47
Yes, Nero and Commodus would also be my favorites. ;) Whereby with Nero his seemingly schizophrenic actions, so juxtaposed young and old Nero, which are the most interesting. In the case of the emperors, however, one also has to take into account the lives of the emperors, through which they were sometimes badly 'written'. I think Marc Aurel would be an example of this
Submitted by Velis on February 11th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
[LEFT] Woesch with a clear conscience I can agree with his choice of emperors. :) And Velis too, when he refers to the respective tradition about the emperors. But I have to contradict you about Marc Aurel. Because it was precisely this who was valued and revered by his contemporaries as well as those born afterwards as a great, good and wise emperor. The historian Cassius Dio praised his behavior, later emperors such as Septimius Severus or Julian Apostata placed themselves in his direct succession and even the Christians who suffered from the persecution of Marcus Aurelius praised him as a good emperor. It is more likely that contemporaries will not leave a good word on a Decius or a Julian Apostate. [/ LEFT]
Submitted by + Ramses + on February 12th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
True, Marcus Aurelius had good historians. I don't think Constantine's achievements are overestimated, as he brought order back to the empire after long turmoil. Diocletian, who comprehensively reformed the empire at the beginning of the 4th century and who, so to speak, did the preparatory work for Constantine's successes, should not be forgotten in this subject. With the crazy ones, I agree, Nero and Commodus are the most suitable candidates here.
Submitted by Titus on February 13th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Yes, that's right Marcus Aurelius was a beloved emperor. When it comes to favorites, I think it's really unspectacular. I take Augustus, because he was the one who determined the Golden Age and with the most famous government achievement
Submitted by H.Kempgen on February 13th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Well, I confused something with Marc Aurel. Thanks for the hint;)
Submitted by Velis on February 13th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I agree with the opinions of Ausgustus, Nero and Commodus. But let's not forget a Vespasian and a Hadrian either. These two were also 'lucky grips' for the empire, because they looked after their subjects and increased the efficiency of administration and economy.
Submitted by Vlad on February 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I still have to get Domitian into the running. Not a classically 'good' princeps, especially because the (senatorial) historiography makes it pretty bad after the damnatio memoriae. He had great successes in foreign policy, and Tacitus also had to give him some praise in internal administration. Maintaining the republican facade was not his thing, on the one hand he suffered from constant fear of conspiracies, on the other hand he duped the Senate. For this he has made the plebs urbana very careful with appropriate care. An exciting princeps for sure! And certainly not as 'evil' as Tacitus and Co. portray it.
Submitted by Agrippina on February 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am
My dear Agrippina! After I have just defamed your pseudonym a little in another thread (see Latin language;)), I have to turn on the topic of 'Domitian' at this point. What is 'crazy'? What if someone behaves in an incomprehensible manner? By this standard, Domitian can certainly not hold a candle to Nero and Commodus, as far as I know, no artistic or gladiatorial quirks have come down to us from him. But if madness also refers to paranoia, I consider Domitian - at least with regard to the upper class of the time - to be one of the most dangerous emperors. He not only duped the Senate, but, if Tacitus is to be believed, systematically terrorized it. The number of victims is less important than the atmosphere. I can imagine that during Domitian's reign there was an atmosphere of fear in Rome, as possibly in Russia at the time of the Stalinist purges, where an entire social class wiped itself out under systematic pressure from above. The survivors feel like they have escaped hell and that is reflected in their portrayals of the era. The more I think about it, the more similarities I discover. If you want to be a good emperor, all you have to do is take a small step forward and look at his brother Titus. :) LG Berenike
Submitted by Berenike on February 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Hello dear Berenike, well, I admit, 'duped' was put in a somewhat milder way;) But I have to do some more research in order to be able to give a really meaningful answer. I don't think I want to leave the 'atmosphere of fear' as it is. I'll get back to you on the subject - shortly! I find Titus boring ...: p Grüßles Agrippina (uninsured: D)
Submitted by Agrippina on February 18th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I have to say a very nice topic. Here you have to start from the opinion of each individual. So I look at great emperors, Augustus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, etc ... Many emperors are also undoubtedly underestimated under whose rule nothing worth mentioning happened, which actually only means that they kept the peace with clever politics or good decisions. Nero, Commodus or Caligula can also be named among the craziest ...
Submitted by Hügl on February 25th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Interesting question. First of all, one would have to agree on how to measure 'size', by the conquests, the literary work or the administration of a ruler. So there are many rulers who could be named, although you have to pay attention to clichés again: Augustus was not a pure prince of peace, but a brutal power politician, ruthless and cruel. Claudius was considered an inept ruler in ancient times, but I think he was capable and very intelligent. I also believe that Vespasian, Trajan, Antoninus Pius and Diocletian ruled with wisdom and moderation. I never think there is a perfect ruler, such as was seen in Charles I the Great in the Middle Ages. Everyone rules (more or less) according to the claims of his time and his own convictions, but nobody is infallible. On the whole, however, the rulers mentioned above could be named as the most capable (perhaps Constantine or Justinian) from whom Rome benefited most. :)
Submitted by Liberal on February 26th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Maiorian and Anthemius are in my opinion 2 Kaier who are completely underestimated. These two emperors only ruled for a very short time and during the time when the Western Roman Empire was countering its downfall. Both emperors tried again to save the empire. Until recently I underestimated Anthemius myself, but he seems to have been something like the last bearer of hope for the Western Roman Empire. Who is also underestimated is Theodosius. In contrast to others, he is not so well known, but was quite important to the empire.
Submitted by WDPG on March 7th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“Rule like Marcian!” Was what Emperor Anastasius shouted in 491 AD. Apparently he was a good emperor. But who is familiar with Marcian (450 - 457 AD)? Probably not too many. He owed the fact that he came to the throne to the army master Aspar and the sister of the emperor Theodosius II, who died without an heir Had taken vows of virginity. He was 58 when he ascended the throne and suffered from gout. Chroniclers attested to his fear of God, seriousness, justice, wisdom, and energy. Marcian gave the eastern part of the empire a time of peace. > An emperor should never start a war as long as he was able to keep peace< ist="" eine="" meinung,="" die="" man="" ihm="" zuschreibt.="" natürlich="" –="" ein="" quäntchen="" glück="" hatte="" marcian="" schon,="" um="" das="" einzuhalten="" zu="" können.="" denn="" die="" weigerung,="" den="" hunnen="" weiterhin="" immensen="" tribut="" zu="" zahlen,="" hätte="" schnell="" in="" einer="" konfrontation="" enden="" können.="" attila="" starb,="" bevor="" er="" gewaltsam="" hätte="" etwas="" einfordern="" können.="" den="" eingesparten="" tribut="" verwendete="" der="" kaiser="" zur="" sanierung="" des="" finanzhaushaltes.="" und="" nicht="" nur="" diese="" einsparung="" trug="" dazu="" bei,="" sondern="" auch="" die="" senkung="" der="" kosten="" für="" militär="" und="" verwaltung.="" es="" gab="" unter="" ihm="" keine="" steuererhöhungen.="" wenigstens="" zeitweise="" stellte="" marcian="" trotz="" heftigen="" widerstandes="" die="" dogmatische="" einheit="" zwischen="" west-="" und="" oströmischer="" kirche="" wieder="" her.="" es="" ist="" schon="" bemerkenswert,="" wenn="" die="" menschen="" noch="" nach="" über="" 30="" jahren="" einem="" neuen="" kaiser="" die="" eingangs="" erwähnten="" worte="" zuriefen.="" es="" muss="" für="" sie="" eine="" „goldene“="" zeit="" gewesen="">
Submitted by Ranilda on April 18th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
The Eastern Roman emperors between Theodosius and Justinian are relatively unknown. But at least it has to be said that they managed to preserve the East Romance, while the West Romance came to an end. Of course, other factors also played a role: The good location of Constantinople and the fact that several provinces were spared from the Teutons. Marcian was certainly one of the underrated emperors, although I deal a lot with Eastern Roman history, I also briefly considered: Who is Marcian, until it occurred to me that he was the one who played a role in the history of the Huns (successor to Theodosius II).
Submitted by WDPG on April 19, 2008 at 11:58 am
Hello! The Eastern Roman Empire suffered even more from the Germans than the Western Roman! After all, the Goths earned their living in the early days of Alaric by extorting enormous payments from Constantinople and even besieging the city a few times (unsuccessfully, however). The sack of the Balkans by the Goths (including Delphis, which meant the end of the oracle) should not have strengthened the empire. But insofar you are right that at least the Anatolian provinces were spared from the Teutons. The gradual collapse of western Rome must have other reasons than the Germanic invasions ... but they have already been mentioned several times. VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on April 20th, 2008 at 10:40 am
The Germanic tribes even threatened the empire enormously and just like in Western Rome they were just as much in the Eastern Roman army and Germanic tribes also sat in high offices. Only East Romans survived this phase, West Romans not. As you said, we have discussed the reasons several times. The immediate Germanic threat ended with the withdrawal of the Ostrogoths to Italy (although the Gepids and Lombards were still in the north and Italy was lost to the Lombards, but these threatened Constantinople and the Balkan provinces no longer). The vandals were defeated under Belisarius. The mercenary army lasted until the time of Emperor Heraklaios.
Submitted by WDPG on April 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
You may be right about both, although I see the better approaches at Maiorian. Maiorian had been made emperor by Rikimer. When he became too arbitrary for the army master, he overthrew him again and had him beheaded. A loss to the Western Roman Empire. Even the Byzantine Emperor Leo I agreed with Maiorain. I.a. The new emperor issued an edict to stop the destruction of old buildings. You may be right about both, although I see the better approaches at Maiorian. Maiorian had been made emperor by Rikimer. When he became too arbitrary for the army master, he overthrew him again and had him beheaded. A loss to the Western Roman Empire. Even the Byzantine Emperor Leo I agreed with Maiorain. I.a. The new emperor issued an edict to stop the destruction of old buildings. You may be right about both, although I see the better approaches at Maiorian. Maiorian had been made emperor by Rikimer. When he became too arbitrary for the army master, he overthrew him again and had him beheaded. A loss to the Western Roman Empire. Even the Byzantine Emperor Leo I agreed with Maiorain. I.a. The new emperor issued an edict to stop the destruction of old buildings. You may be right about both, although I see the better approaches at Maiorian. Maiorian had been made emperor by Rikimer. When he became too arbitrary for the army master, he overthrew him and had him beheaded. A loss to the Western Roman Empire. Even the Byzantine Emperor Leo I agreed with Maiorain. I.a. The new emperor issued an edict to stop the destruction of old buildings. You may be right about both, although I see the better approaches at Maiorian. Maiorian had been made emperor by Rikimer. When he became too arbitrary for the army master, he overthrew him again and had him beheaded. A loss to the Western Roman Empire. Even the Byzantine Emperor Leo I agreed with Maiorain. I.a. The new emperor issued an edict to stop the destruction of old buildings. [quote] ... We know that here and there public buildings, in which all the decorations exist, are destroyed with the criminal guarantee of the authorities. While pretending that their stones are necessary for public works, the splendid structures of the old buildings are thrown apart and the great things are destroyed in order to make small ones somewhere. This already gives rise to the abuse that even those who build a private house undertake to take the necessary material from public places out of favor with the city judges
Submitted by Ranilda on April 21, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Now I have to ask in astonishment: Honestly, but you didn't know everything out of my head? I, too, find Maiorian more admirable than Anthemius, but I want to mention one more thing. Anthemius had a better chance of getting back to North Africa, he had a much larger army at his disposal, as the Eastern Roman emperor supported him much more. In addition, Anthemius was the last emperor with halfway meaning, the ones after that went down even faster and had almost no power at all. Somehow I also find Rikimer an interesting figure. He had a number of emperors on their conscience and contributed a great deal to the decline of the empire, and yet no one was strong enough to disempower him. In addition, the question arises for me: What did Rikimer actually want? And were his deeds as a military leader really so great that one could not depose him or that it was enough for the people with him when he deposed the 3rd or 4th emperor. With the Eastern Roman Emperor d
Submitted by WDPG on April 21, 2008 at 10:48 pm
No, I took another look at the book, already because of it. of the quote. Admittedly, I had made a post-it note while reading it, because I didn’t keep the order right away with Rikimer's “Kaiser-Wear”. I was fascinated by Maiorian that he advocated the preservation of the old buildings, because the Romans themselves cheerfully dismantled everything that was not nailed down. Yet every history book “knows” that it was the “bad” Germanic tribes. I was amused by the version of a German (!) Tour guide who told us in Rome that the Goths of Alaric had broken out the iron clamps in the Colosseum. 3 days time to plunder and the Goths pounce on things that you can't easily take with you? But back to Anthemius. Actually, as Marcian's son-in-law, he would have been a candidate for the throne after Marcian's death. Irony of fate: too
Submitted by Ranilda on April 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I would say it's hard to say whether Anthemius or Maiorian was more important. Maiorian tried reforms of which I was not aware of Anthemius and also tried to preserve the culture of the Romans. Anthemius had much more support from the Eastern Roman Emperor (due to the reasons you gave) and it was harder for Rikimer to get rid of him (after all, after the failed reconquest of North Africa, Italy first split, then a reconciliation and only then became Anthemius fallen). There are authors who emphasized Maiorian more (Gibbon) and authors who emphasized Anthemius more (Peter Heather). Overall, it can be said that the two were the last to attempt to save Western Rome. Olybrius (ruled for a very short time, army master Rikimer again), Glycerius (dependent on his Burgundian army master, when he let him down the ruling was over), Julius Nepos (of him are mi
Submitted by WDPG on April 23, 2008 at 11:19 am
Very nice listings of Ranilda and WDPG :) I have a (maybe stupid) question, but would a Flavius ​​Aetius as emperor of West Rome at the time have helped more than the emperors who were rather incapable of ruling at the time? Apparently he was a strong personality who tried to take on Attila ...
Submitted by Hügl on April 23, 2008 at 11:30 am
In my opinion yes, although I don't know whether he could have saved the Western Roman Empire. After all, the Germanic tribes were already in the empire and North Africa had already been lost to the Vandals. But perhaps the empire would have been spared the constant change on the imperial throne. In addition, Flavius ​​Aetius seems to me to be far more of a person of respect than Emperor Valentinian III was. This was constantly (at least that's how it seems to me) influenced by some whisperers. But it is difficult to say whether Flavius ​​Aetius would not have become too powerful for anyone and ultimately fell victim to an intrigue. It would certainly have been an important task to recapture North Africa, but whether he would have made it would have been exciting. What would have been at least as exciting a question for me if the question would have been what would have happened if Stilicho (army master and guardian of Honorius) had not been murdered?
Submitted by WDPG on April 23, 2008 at 11:58 am
Valentinian III. sat on the throne for 30 years (425 - 455 AD). But one must not forget that most of the time he was dependent on his overpowering mother Galla Placidia (d. 450 AD). So who actually ruled of the two? However, the mother was already dead when the emperor drew his weapon against Aetius in 09/454 AD. Aetius as emperor? Difficult to say what would have become of it. He might have slowed the wheel of history a little, but he certainly couldn't have stopped it. The WRR was already too worn out for that. Personally, I consider Aetius, if an able general, but not necessarily a personable person. First and foremost, he was obsessed with power, also scheming and at times made pacts with the Huns (he had the Burgundians put down by them, which was probably reflected in the Nibelungen saga). Initially, Aetius integrated in conjunction with the army master Flavius
Submitted by Ranilda on April 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Thanks Ranilda for the lineup to Aetius! :) I would also have a train of thought: From which emperor do you think the fall of Rome was already sealed or with whom did it begin? I think with the division of the empire the downfall was already stamped or seen. Or even earlier? With the countless emperors in the 3rd century? I'm curious about your opinions because I am always interested in Rome ...
Submitted by Hügl on April 24th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I think that the downfall began with Markus Aurelius. He did not choose the best for his successor (the recipe for success of his predecessors, the adoptive emperors, who thus gave Rome a final golden age), but his tyrannical, incompetent son. After his assassination, Rome's political system was so 'cold' that it could no longer defend itself against the intrigues of individuals and within 30 years tens of emperors ruled.
Submitted by Liberal on April 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I've already thought of that. It is not for nothing that there is the nostalgic film from the 60s 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' which contains exactly this turning point from Marcus Aurelius to Commodus.
Submitted by Hügl on April 24th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Great list, but I'm still missing something: Didn't Flavius ​​Aetius also try to get Johannes to the western Roman throne instead of Valentinian III with the help of the Huns? As for the sympathy, I agree. On the other hand, Flavius ​​Aetius at least succeeded in asserting himself against his opponents and even subjugating some Teutons, even if his main means was the help of the Huns. One thing is certain Aetius would never (if he had been emperor) have tolerated an army master Rikimer who was so powerful. But I also believe that it was too late to actually save Westrom. Another question: what do you think of Stilichio?
Submitted by WDPG on April 24th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
In the case of Byzantium, I find it a little easier to say when the empire could no longer be saved. It all started (by that I mean the decline) with Commodus in my opinion. But after that the empire didn't go downhill all the time, but in my opinion the reign of Commodus means the end of Rome's heyday. If Theodosius had had a capable successor, then maybe it would have been enough to stop the decline of Rome, on the other hand, in Theodosius's time there were mainly Germanic mercenaries in the Roman army and there were already the overpowering army masters. One point would be the battle of Adrianople, had it been won, the story might have turned out differently. Three points which, in my opinion, strongly signal the decline were the final division into east and west Rome 395 (although later Theodosius II again theoretically united both empires), the conquest of Rome by the Visigoths i
Submitted by WDPG on April 24th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
One could see the time from Commodus as the beginning of the descent. But we are now in the process of weaving two threads together: this one and the "Downfall of Westrom". Although ... one thing always has to do with the other, not just with foreign policy! Militarily, Commodus cannot be accused of anything: he was successful in Britain, secured the borders, the eastern provinces lived in peace. What marked a turning point was the confrontation with the Senate and the fact that it left rule to a Praetorian prefect, particularly Tigidius Perennis. In the future, these played just as important a role in the being or not being of the emperors as the legions and the senate. Those who were supported by one part mostly offended the other. His successor, Pertinax, can serve as an example. Proclaimed emperor by the Commodus conspirators with the approval of the Senate, he increasingly met with rejection from the Praetorians. These feared too
Submitted by Ranilda on April 25th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
As far as I know, there was a third emperor in Britain during the time of Septimus Severus (or before he prevailed) (unfortunately I have no book available at the moment where I can look up the name). You're right Militarily, the time of Commodus did no harm. But still I see the beginning of a decline here. Then came the Severinian dynasty (which did not rule very well) and the soldier emperors. Only then did we get back to stability. By then, however, the empire had already suffered a lot of damage and the prosperity was over. When asked why Westrom or Rome lasted so long? One reason is certainly the lack of strong enough opponents. The individual Teutons could be repulsed again and again and the Sassanids could certainly cause trouble, nevertheless they could cause trouble in the east, but not seriously threaten the empire. This threat came with the Huns and they panicked the Germans again and again
Submitted by WDPG on April 25th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
[quote = Ranilda; 3633] One could see the time from Commodus as the beginning of the descent. But we are now in the process of weaving two threads together: this one and the "Downfall of Westrom". Although ... one thing always has to do with the other, not just with foreign policy! ................................ ............ You are actually right about the mixture, I only noticed now. Quite different questions: From which emperor do you think it was no longer possible to turn things around? What do you think of Stilichio?
Submitted by WDPG on April 25th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
You mean Albinus as the third emperor. Severus offered him the title of Caesar and Albinus and his legions remained well behaved in Britain. At first at least ... until Severus made his son Caracalla Caesar and, according to Herodian, tried to get rid of Albinus. Severus won the Battle of Lyon and the deposed Caesar committed suicide. (Admittedly read) Correct, the "suitable" opponent was missing, who could throw just as much militarily into the scales. The Germanic peoples weren't that far and Rome was already a master at playing off the tribes against each other. Nevertheless, due to the constant usurpations, there could have been a fragmentation. There was a special Gallic empire under Postumus.
Submitted by Ranilda on April 25th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Albinus, that's exactly what I meant. As for the Gallic Sonderreich, yes, there was not only that, at the time of the soldier emperors there were quite a few of these special empires in Palmyra, for example. Why wasn't the empire split up here? I think that has to do with the Roman way of thinking. There is only one empire, even when the empire was divided into 2 parts, there was actually only one, the empire was divided into two parts for better administration. But one thing remained. This somewhat complicated, even ideotic-sounding way of thinking could have saved the empire from division. Incidentally, the Byzantine Empire was not often really divided (except in 1204 and once shortly before the end - but theoretically not even here).
Submitted by WDPG on April 25th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I consider this emperor - who, by the way, was called Antoninus Pius - to be overrated. He was doing practically nothing. He did not rule, only administered. At a time when the Reich was not facing any particular challenges, that was not such a great achievement. At least he stabilized the empire again. He carried out successful campaigns, reformed the army and recognized the signs of the times: that the empire needed a second focus in the east and that paganism was in principle dead, at least no longer suitable as a state-supporting force.
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I don't think you can really differentiate between the 'early' and the 'late' Nero. His negative dispositions were always there, only in his youth they were masked by the influence of Seneca and Burrus. Over time, he just dared more and more.
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
So his foreign policy successes weren't that great. In Germania he only conquered the Dekumatenland, and made peace with the Dacians by paying tribute to Decebalus after unsuccessful battles.
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I guess he really was. His problem was that he let his women show him off, which made him look ridiculous and lost his respect. Justinian overused the strength of his empire with his campaigns and buildings. Instead of focusing on the real threat, the Persians, he waged unnecessary wars in the west. In addition, he was rather weak personally, he just surrounded himself with capable staff (including his wife).
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
If you are already a travel guide in Rome, you should perhaps read Gregorovius after all ...;) Patricius soon became someone back then, that shouldn't be overrated.
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
How was he supposed to finish them off? Pursue you to Pannonia and Eastern Europe? You forget that his army essentially consisted of a provisionally cobbled together alliance of various Germanic tribes who were only concerned with their own defense and not with the final overthrow of the enemy. In addition, the Visigoths had other worries after their king was killed in battle. Of course, this does not exclude the fact that he actually wanted to keep the Huns as a threat - albeit a reduced one - in order to remain indispensable for the emperor and the empire and to keep the Teutons in check.
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
If you accuse him of this mistake, one must not forget that the highly acclaimed adoptive emperors before him had no sons of their own to inherit. Had they really ignored their own flesh and blood?
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Historically, however, you can largely forget that.
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
However, it was precisely the military empire that ensured that some militarily gifted leaders came to the imperial throne, e. B. Maximinus Thrax, Claudius Gothicus, Aurelianus, Probus, ...
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
The fact that the army contained many Teutons was not the problem. The Roman army had not been national Roman for a long time, and non-Romans had also risen earlier, just think of the various soldier emperors of Illyrian origin in the 3rd century. I think you are overrating this battle. What was the big result? The Visigoths received a federal treaty? What would have happened in the event of a victory? First, not even all of the Visigoths took part in the battle, so even if they were defeated, they would not have been completely destroyed. And even if they did, there were plenty of other Germanic peoples. Not necessarily, she was only as a
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 17:40
Definitely Maiorianus! What was so bad about Ricimer? The fact that he constantly changed the emperors was not necessarily helpful, but the actual power was usually with him anyway, so his long reign also meant stability. It cannot be proven that he deliberately sabotaged Maiorian's vandalism campaign. What would the alternative have been without a powerful army master? Ostrom would have tried to use weak emperors who recognize the sovereignty of the east. But then they would hardly have been able to hold out and would have been constantly overthrown by some soldier emperors, whereupon Ostrom would have sent new pretenders with an army to the west. There was a mighty army master who was halfway with the East
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Well remembered! Aetius brought in Hunnish auxiliaries for Johannes, but came too late. John was already caught and executed. I think a lot of him. He achieved significant military successes. The fact that he sometimes simply had to buy peace doesn't really spoil his balance sheet; he did what he could. I cannot really imagine that he really wanted to make his son the Eastern Roman emperor after Arcadius' death: he would not have been so easily accepted in Constantinople. Stilicho should have brought him to the throne by force of arms and kept him on the throne by force of arms - as if he hadn't otherwise had enough to do.
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I think from Commodus. Under him the power of the Praetorians grew, which meant that they were able to work as emperor-makers after his death. They then played this ominous role in the 3rd century. even more often. This went hand in hand with the increase in the importance of the army after Commodu's assassination. Septimius Severus needed their help to assert himself against his competitors. He relied entirely on the military and increased the pay significantly. It got even worse under Caracalla, who spoiled the Soldateska. In the first two centuries of the imperial era, apart from the year of the four emperors, the army had been disciplined and loyal to the emperors. Now it became a power factor itself. His wages rose immeasurably, which in turn boosted inflation and damaged the economy, and it murdered in the 3rd century. many a capable emperor. Only a few emperors like Diocletian and Constantine I still managed to really un
Submitted by Scifi on December 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
You are absolutely right. At first glance, it looks like they are all weak personalities who couldn't last long. If you take a closer look at the soldier emperors, you quickly notice untalented and most of them were not weak at all. It was just a difficult time, when emperors mostly couldn't hold out for long. Still, I would say that Rome has gone downhill during this time. One reason was the constantly changing emperors. But Rome had far greater problems with the invading Germanic peoples and the consequences of their invasion. The pressure was so gigantic that an emperor should have been everywhere at the same time, because if he had appointed another military leader for an area, he always ran the risk that he would turn against him if he succeeded. As a result, numerous 'special empires' were formed, which had not exactly made it easier for the emperors. And not quite too ve either
Posted by WDPG on December 14th, 2008 at 10:00 am
It is really questionable whether the great migration and the decline of the empire could have been prevented with a victory over the Visigoths. But still Adrianople was a great defeat of the Roman army against a Germanic people on Roman soil. It showed that Rome was no longer the power it once was. In addition, the Visigoths became a burden for the Eastern and later for the Western Roman Empire. Before Adrianople it might still have been possible to integrate them. That failed at the latest with Adrianople.
Submitted by WDPG on December 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I totally agree with you, I also think that Stilicho was a good master. One cannot blame him for not preventing the Germanic peoples from entering the empire. He just couldn't do that anymore.Rome was no longer strong enough for that and the burden of the Germanic tribes was too great. Whether he really tried to make his son Emperor of the East is difficult to say, but I think you're right. He would not have been accepted as emperor. Of course, the whole thing throws a bad light on Emperor Honorius who had Stilicho murdered.
Submitted by WDPG on December 14th, 2008 at 10:13 am
The toll in blood was enormous, and the defeat undoubtedly robbed the Germans of a lot of respect for Rome, so it already had an impact. Even so, the Romans later won important victories against the Goths. Stilicho not only destroyed the group of Radagais, but also struck Alaric twice, without which, however, would have led to its destruction. I therefore do not believe that a victory at Adrianople would have freed the Romans from the problem of the Goths. The Eastern Roman Empire survived them, the Western Roman Empire suffered from them despite Stilicho's victories. I do not know. They also got a federal treaty afterwards. Germanic tribes could be integrated. who were settled halfway closed and were allowed to continue to live according to their own laws and under their own leaders, but not anyway.
Submitted by Scifi on December 14th, 2008 at 11:34 am
A soldier emperor also had practically no chance of surviving. If he was strong and capable, he tried to discipline the army and made himself unpopular. If he was weak and incapable, he incurred the contempt of his army and made himself unpopular. The result in both cases was his murder.
Submitted by Scifi on December 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Even after the Visigoths withdrew, Ostrom still had Teutons in their own country. The Ostrogoths were also in the Balkans before they left for Italy. Besides, there were still Germans in the army. The fact that there were mainly foreign mercenaries in the army did not cease until the time of Emperor Heraklaios. In fact, Ostrom always had foreign mercenaries in the army. Why Ostrom survived the migration of peoples better than the western part of the empire is also an interesting question (already had a discussion about it): I think that the geographical location played a role, just like the location of Constantinople. But what also played a role: The parts of the empire in the east were simply stronger than those in the west during the migration period.
Submitted by WDPG on December 14th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Why should Adrianople have changed anything too? It would probably have been a Pyrrhic victory and therefore hardly had any weight, or rather that of the opponents. LG Phigo
Submitted by Phigo on July 22nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Objection: The last soldier emperor lasted a long time and was even able to fundamentally reform the state: Diocletian. VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on July 25th, 2009 at 9:20 am
That's why I wrote 'practically no chance'. There are of course always exceptions. But in the last few weeks in the 'Die Kaiser' series in particular, I have shown very nicely that a person's life expectancy sank rapidly when they were proclaimed emperor.
Submitted by Scifi on July 25th, 2009 at 10:53 am
That is true, however ... Confirms the exceptional position of both Diocletian and Kontantine. VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on July 25th, 2009 at 10:55 am
But Constantine was not a typical soldier emperor in that he was proclaimed emperor by his troops, but dynastic thinking was already involved.
Submitted by Scifi on July 25th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Hello! What I find most exciting are the adoptive emperors and the short-lived emperors (soldier emperors and the last emperors of the Western Roman Empire) .: cool: Many are underestimated, in whose rule nothing happened, precisely because they so skillfully secured the empire. An example is Antonius Pius, who restored the state finances and ensured peace in the empire, Vespasian or Hadrian, also a peacekeeper. I can also agree with WDPG: Augustus in particular (because he founded the principate, he was a cruel power politician) and Constantine (because he founded Christianity) are overrated. There are crazy emperors en masse, e.g. Nero, Commodus, Caligula or Elegabal. That will be because the insane, unscrupulous incumbents simply got rid of the peace-loving ones. An example of this is the hugely popular Titus, who was likely murdered by his tyrannical brother Domitian. Many greetings from Maxdorf
Submitted by Maxdorfer on March 5th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
The one who just occurred to me is Aurelian (270-275). He is extremely underrated. The crisis of the military emperor's time weakened, motivation rose again. He was successful against the Teutons, waived all tax debts and started extensive construction work such as the Aurelian Wall. The Maxdorfer
Submitted by Maxdorfer on March 15th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
All in all, during the last military emperors since at least Gallienus / Postumus, the signs point to stability again, which then culminates in Dioklis' zeal for work. And even if the latter failed in the end, that is only the template from which Constantin can then build on. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on March 15th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Can one actually see the Roman Empire as a constitutional monarchy, with due regard for the Senate, or was it absolute?
Posted by kugelschreiber1 on March 16, 2011 at 4:30 p.m.
Since the Senate hardly had any decision-making powers, it was more absolute. Maybe in the 1st century still with one shot 'constitutional', but that became less and less (with a last rebellion perhaps at the appointment of Emperor Nerva) until it was completely gone. VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on March 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm
The Senate had minimal power insofar as emperors who were not in a friendly mood to the Senate were either eliminated or maligned. Domitian is now considered to be an 'evil' emperor because he was not very friendly to the senators and many historians were from the senatorial class or were influenced by it. Greetings from Maxdorf
Submitted by Maxdorfer on March 17th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Around 250 was probably the blackest time of the military emperor's era, you will notice that, among other things, when you go back to around 250 in the series 'The Dying of the Roman Emperors', especially to all the ursupators that Scifi 'submitted' later.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on May 23, 2011 at 6:50 pm
I once read that all Roman emperors before Diocletian in 284 AD had to pay lip service or an oath of introduction to the Roman Republic. Officially, the republic did not go under; It was only cranked out by Augustus with more or less legal means. When Caesar wanted to 'destroy' the republic with brute force and took to the Roman forum in February 44 BC. BC also showed provocative with a purple king toga, this led to his murder on March 15th. 44 BC Chr.
Submitted by puma92 on May 27, 2011 at 4:03 pm
[quote = puma92; 111913] I once read that all Roman emperors before Diocletian in 284 AD had to pay lip service or an oath of introduction to the Roman Republic. Officially, the republic did not go under; It was only cranked out by Augustus with more or less legal means. When Caesar wanted to 'destroy' the republic with brute force and took to the Roman forum in February 44 BC. BC also showed provocative with a purple king toga, this led to his murder on March 15th. 44 BC Chr. [/ Quote] That's right. That is why the form of rule from Augustus to before Diocletian is called the principate, from 284 (i.e. since the beginning of Diocletian's rule) as the dominate. Right. That is why the form of rule from Augustus to before Diocletian is called the principate, from 284 (i.e. since the beginning of Diocletian's rule) as the dominate. Right. That is why the form of rule from Augustus to before Diocletian is called the principate, from 284 (i.e. since the beginning of Diocletian's rule) as the dominate. Right. That is why the form of rule from Augustus to before Diocletian is called the principate, from 284 (i.e. since the beginning of Diocletian's rule) as the dominate. Right. That is why the form of rule from Augustus to before Diocletian is called the principate, from 284 (i.e. since the beginning of Diocletian's rule) as the dominate. Right. That is why the form of rule from Augustus to before Diocletian is called the principate, from 284 (i.e. since the beginning of Diocletian's rule) as the dominate. Right. That is why the form of rule from Augustus to before Diocletian is called the principate, from 284 (i.e. since the beginning of Diocletian's rule) as the dominate. Right. For this reason, the form of rule from Augustus to before Diocletian became a principate, from 284 (i.e. since the beginning of Diocletian's rule) as a cathedral
Submitted by Sansavoir on May 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Vespasian didn't want to become emperor at all, but was made emperor because the soldiers thought that a 'wise old' Vespasian and his son, the young, dynamic and energetic Titus, would be a stroke of luck for the empire. They were then too.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on 05.06.2011 at 09:03 o'clock
A stroke of luck, yes. Against Vespasian's will, that's propaganda. And even if - Vespasian was popular because of his military successes. After the chaos of the year of the Four Emperors, he was most likely to be able to get a grip on this chaos - if you get a grip on Judea, you probably trust him to do everything ...: D: D VG Christian
Submitted by 913Chris on 05.06.2011 at 09:08 o'clock
Dear Christian, that's it .;) However, strength was more likely to be attributed to his son Titus, who led the most difficult part of the Jewish War (and the siege of Jerusalem). It was he who got a grip on Judea. The expectations of Vespasian were rather wisdom, experience and gentleness.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on June 5th, 2011 at 10:52 am
And that's why it's a shame for Rome that Titus died so early. He was too trustworthy. After all, he managed the disaster year well.
Posted by kugelschreiber1 on June 5th, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
You mean the eruption of Vesuvius etc.? Yes, he managed that well. Wasn't Titus killed by his jealous young brother Domitian? It is not certain, but there is a rumor.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on June 5th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
That the downfall began is perhaps a bit exaggerated, but a certain decline began in the time of Marcus Aurelius. The age of Antony Pius is sometimes considered to be 'where the Romans were happiest'. Opinions differ about the emperor himself, ranging from brilliant to lazy. For the Romans it was probably a kind of interim solution between Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. Major problems then arose under Marcus Aurelius. During wars against the Parthians, a threatening (smallpox) epidemic was brought into the empire from the east, which massively weakened the west. The marcomanni used the resulting weakness to penetrate deep into the empire. Marcus Aurelius defeated them, but it required considerable effort - the cost of the campaigns must have been enormous. Since Commodus refrained from keeping the conquered areas as provinces, no direct profit could be made (except for the
Submitted by WDPG on 07/22/2011 at 4:29 pm
Like most of the great empires, Rome has survived many crises. Examples of this are Marius / Sulla, the struggle for Caesar's succession, the first year of the four emperors, the time as a soldier emperor, etc. The empire emerged stronger from some crises, from some it recovered only with difficulty, some weakened it forever. Which crises belong in which category is - of course - a topic that can be argued about. Most of the crises from 190 onwards belong to the latter category. After the crisis year 193, a recovery period followed (Severer), but the empire did not fully recover. After the military emperor's time 235-284 a recovery period followed (Diocletian, Constantine, etc.), but the empire did not fully recover. After the crisis in 410 and the sacking of Rome, a recovery period followed (Majorian, Anthemius), but the empire did not fully recover. In short: the empire recovered after every crisis, but after each crisis it was overcome, the empire was a little weaker than before. And in the last crisis, the empire hit zero. Exceptions prove the rule.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on July 25th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
But you said yourself above that this was not the case, at least until the high phase of the Principate. And even after that it is very questionable whether your theory is correct (decadence theory, outdated). LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on July 25th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
In the passage you cited, I am talking about the crisis after Marcus Aurelius. I don't know anything about it anyway. What I've written grew on my own crap, if it's proven wrong I take it all back.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on July 25th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Wouldn't see the Severers' total time as recovery time. This dynasty had just one capable emperor to muster - Septimus Severus. And even with this one has to say OK he stabilized the empire in his rule, but before that there followed bloody power struggles that cost the Romans valuable resources. And he had the problem that he was anything but popular with the Senate, his power base was the soldiers, whom he promoted with 'special rights' and high payments. But he was at least a halfway capable emperor, in contrast to Caracalla and Elegabal, who weakened the empire as a whole. Under Severus Alexander there was a change: the enemies of the empire became stronger, so larger peoples emerged among the Teutons and the Sassanids also acted more aggressively than the Parthians, who were already weakened in the end. So overall no real recovery (at most a short-term one), the era that followed (a severe crisis) began
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 10:06 am
I would not see this time as a recovery time. The crisis began well before 410, when the Visigoths invaded the empire and the Eastern Army defeated Adrianople. Stilicho pursued a policy of consolidation and had to move troops from the edges of the empire to the 'center of the empire' in order to be able to defend it. A policy that shows how weak (West) Rome has become, but at least he managed to ward off some threats with it, only when he was killed were the Visigoths able to take Rome. This was followed by an at best short phase of stabilization - if you can even call what was between 410 and 455 that, because something was already looming that would eventually cause big problems for the empire. From 455 it was anything but a time of stabilization, it was a time of great problems and a time of decline, in which Majorian and Anthemius desperately braced themselves against doom and failed.
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 10:15 am
Here, too, I have to contradict you: The Roman Empire in the West did not cease to exist from scratch. A Roman Empire was still deeply anchored in people's minds. No wonder, there has been one in the Mediterranean for centuries. One then (for some time) saw the Eastern Emperor as a legitimate emperor, but somehow the view prevailed that there had to be an emperor, even if he only ruled theoretically.
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 10:19 am
I don't quite agree with you on the matter, but I think it's good when such 'discussion impulses' come and theories that are not entirely correct are such impulses. In addition, I often feel that I deal with something, I think I am completely right and when I deal with the topic again I realize how wrong I was.
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 10:22 am
Somehow it is. At least after the Gothic Wars. The fall is one of the deepest since human existence, Germanic culture, political and economic development have led to millennia of stagnation. For example, the daily water supply for the individual from the imperial era was only achieved again in the 70s of the 20th century. Let's put it this way: the destruction was not equally hard everywhere (i.e. on ground zero), or in some regions (south coast of the Mediterranean) it was possible to build on old achievements. Once the institutions are broken, they are difficult to rebuild. The Middle Ages ain't the Dark Ages everywhere, OK, but compared to what was earlier, with the early modern times it's the realm of darkness. In D all the more.
Submitted by RedScorpion on July 31, 2011 at 11:32 am
Yes and no, on the one hand you are absolutely right with your argument. If you look at the remains of Roman sites and then the medieval cities, which were not much more than a 'village collection', you can see the huge regression (which probably began at the end of Roman rule). So a zero point after all. On the other hand, the entire Roman Empire, for example, did not reach zero, after all, the East continued to exist. And then there was the already mentioned idea of ​​the emperor. Overall, the question with the 'zero point' is an exciting question that is difficult to answer.
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Probably not. The regression in civilization did not begin until the late 5th century. Yes, but not without faults either. I can't do anything with it. In what way? And why should cheap (st) he imitations like Charlemagne or similar phantoms have meant progress? LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on July 31, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Difficult to judge, it was probably a development that lasted a long time. The Roman cities, buildings, etc. didn't disappear from one day to the next. But the rulers of the often very short-lived Germanic empires (from their point of view) probably had more important things to do than take urban planning measures. After all, for them it was always about the survival of their empires. Frequent incursions as a result of the politically insecure situation often led to the abandonment of cities, important trade routes ceased to exist, etc. It is difficult to fix a beginning there.
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I would put it this way: Over time, of course, this empire has also changed. However, Byzantium, and above all Constantinople, was superior to the West in terms of civilization, urban planning, etc. over large parts of the Middle Ages.
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 12:52 pm
They had nothing to do with progress, but with Rome, after all, the imperial idea itself was derived from the Roman Empire.
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 12:57 pm
That is exactly what I wanted to say.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on July 31, 2011 at 2:18 pm
The empire had not reached zero in 476, but power had completely collapsed. In purely theoretical terms, Romolus Augustulus was not totally legitimized either.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on July 31, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Which was also linked to Germanic tribes (i.e. in the Franconian Empire).
Submitted by Maxdorfer on July 31, 2011 at 2:26 pm
The emperor in the east did not recognize him, that is true. In addition, one must say that his domain was at best Italy and southern Gaul and nowhere near the whole of the Western Roman Empire. You're absolutely right.
Submitted by WDPG on July 31, 2011 at 2:50 pm
And even if the monkey dresses in silk, he still remains a monkey. LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on July 31, 2011 at 3:42 pm
After all, the silk was not destroyed, but reused.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on August 1st, 2011 at 7:03 am
The achievements of some of the so-called soldier emperors are underestimated. At first glance it looks as if there were only a number of short-lived emperors who were unable to hold out any longer and among whom the Reich experienced one catastrophe after another. If you take a closer look you can see that many of the emperors tried as best they could to end the imperial crisis. Wouldn't underestimate people like Maximinus Thrax, Decius, Claudius II or Aurelian. Even Gallienus, under whom the Imperial Crisis probably reached its climax, I don't think was an incompetent man. Many tried to take action against the imperial crisis with different concepts - also for this reason a very interesting (but also confused) time. The problem was rather the overall circumstances: the empire was threatened from outside (strong Germanic peoples' associations, Sassanids), had severe financial problems and an emperor could never be safe even if he was successful
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 10:51 am
I agree with you. Regarding the pencil, it should also be noted that only a few of the emperors traditionally considered 'incapable' were soldier emperors. They first had to fight for their power. Didius Iulianus, for example, simply bid the most at the auction of the imperial throne and was then able to fully act out his inability. He would not have come to power during the time of the soldier emperor - he would not even have become a military leader. And even if he had, the soldiers would not have proclaimed him emperor. Had he made himself emperor, his rule would soon have collapsed. In the days of the soldiers' emperors, so to speak, only the most capable survived.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on August 2nd, 2011 at 11:37 am
He didn't get much from this rash act, though. In a very short time others (more capable) were there and he not only lost the throne but also his life.
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 11:43 am
I wouldn't necessarily say. Gordian III, for example, was a minor when he became emperor. The Praetorians made him emperor, whose prefect held true power. So Gordian III was probably not that much stronger than the aforementioned Didus Julianus. When the powerful Praetorian prefect Timesitheus died, he was succeeded by Phillip Arabs, who then made himself emperor. Well, not only were there able military leaders and emperors at that time, but I think they are generally underrated.
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 11:49 am
Of course, of course. But I have explained long and broadly above why he would not have come to the throne during the time of the soldier emperor. Another example of my thesis: Some incompetent or crazy emperors came to the throne through succession, such as Nero, Caligula, Domitian or Commodus. That would not necessarily have happened in the time of the soldier emperor. There would have been many more rivals, and the aforementioned emperors would have had no legitimacy. (Note: On this sunny day I have absolutely no desire to discuss for the tenth time whether Nero and Caligula were really crazy. The fact is: They have many lives on their conscience) In any case, you see again: In the time between 235 - In 238 you had to have a certain talent to become emperor. Or, if an incompetent did become emperor, he was soon murdered again or deposed.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on August 2nd, 2011 at 11:50 am
Okay, your're right, I agree with you. I think my theory is absolutely correct with some emperors - so with the ones you mentioned above. For some, what you write here applies. You can't see all the soldier emperors in a row, it's like comparing apples with pears. In any case, however, the soldier emperors are generally underestimated, we agree on that.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on August 2nd, 2011 at 11:54 am
I wouldn't necessarily say. Gordian III, for example, was a minor when he became emperor. The Praetorians made him emperor, whose prefect held true power. So Gordian III was probably not that much stronger than the aforementioned Didus Julianus. When the powerful Praetorian prefect Timesitheus died, he was succeeded by Phillip Arabs, who then made himself emperor. Well, not only were there able military leaders and emperors at that time, but I think they are generally underrated.
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 11:56 am
Whereby the name of the soldiers' emperor's time, although common, is somehow misleading. Most, but not all, of the emperors during this period were previously soldiers and not all of them had the army as their power base. Pupienus and Balbinus, for example, were senators before and were also made emperor by the Senate. Gordian I also did not come directly from the army and Gallienus, for example, did not become emperor because of his successes in the army but because his father Valerian was emperor, made him co-emperor in the west and was captured in the fight against the Sassanids. Basically I think the name 'Reichskriese in the 3rd century' fits better to this time.
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:02 pm
If you forget the 'e' in 'Reichskriese' - yes, you're right.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:04 pm
If you take it exactly, this statement is incorrect: not even the most capable survived. At that time, no emperor (with the exception of Gallienus) had a longer reign - even if he was successful. Very few died of natural causes; most were murdered in conspiracies or mutinies.
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:05 pm
But only the most capable stayed on the throne a little longer.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I also notice that some emperors who came to the throne through succession are considered emperors of terror. A 'dread emperor' might even have ascended the throne, but would have left again - as you have already written.
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:08 pm
You are absolutely right. You also have to consider that there were several phases during this time.
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Well, then we agree.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Thanks for the hint. Knows that I often have terrible spelling, especially when I switch back and forth between cooking and the internet like I do at the moment. Please excuse me.
Submitted by WDPG on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:13 pm
I also stop by here every now and then between schoolwork, which is not always in favor of spelling. Spelling mistakes are actually not that terrible. With this in mind: Enjoy your meal and have a nice day.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on August 2nd, 2011 at 12:17 pm
I recently wrote an article about the Roman Empire, which I at least want to link here. and then (with discussion) the entire following page of the thread:
Submitted by Maxdorfer on October 30, 2011 at 3:57 pm
I have to contradict one more time: The sixties of the third century AD (Emperor Gallienus from 260 (co-regent since 253) to 268 were the low point of the empire during the soldiers' emperor's time, as shown by the 30 (albeit mostly fictitious) usurpers under Gallienus, which are mentioned in the Historia Augustana. The situation of the empire under Claudius Gothicus (268 to 270) is difficult to assess, under Aurelianus (270 to 275) the imperial crisis almost came to an end (reunification of the empire, reforms, repulsion of invading peoples, etc. And then there was another low point: The three emperor year 276 with Tacitus (not to be confused with the Roman historian of the same name), Florianus and Probus, whose reign then lasted until 282 and who, according to many modern and ancient authors, even more than Aurelian Reich secured again, but after him it came to a kind of low for the third time since 260
Submitted by Maxdorfer on October 30, 2011 at 4:11 pm
[quote = kugelschreiber1; 112816] And that's why it's a shame for Rome that Titus died so early. He was too trustworthy. After all, he managed the disaster year well. [/ Quote] 'My' latest thread 'Emperor Titus - Parricide?' Is about Titus. 'My' newest thread 'Emperor Titus - Parricide?' Is about Titus. 'My' newest thread 'Emperor Titus - Parricide?' Is about Titus. 'My' newest thread 'Emperor Titus - Parricide?' Is about Titus. 'My' newest thread 'Emperor Titus - Parricide?' Is about Titus. 'My' newest thread 'Emperor Titus - Parricide?' Is about Titus.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on October 30, 2011 at 4:13 pm
[quote = WDPG; 3660] Albinus, that's exactly what I meant. As for the Gallic Sonderreich, yes, there was not only that, at the time of the soldier emperors there were quite a few of these special empires in Palmyra, for example. [/ quote] Quite a few? ... Well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: the Gallic sub-kingdom (quite a few? ... Well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: the Gallic sub-kingdom () and the Palmyrenian sub-kingdom of the Zenobia (quite a few? ... well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: the Gallic sub-kingdom (quite a few? ... well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: the Gallic sub-kingdom () and the Palmyrenian sub-kingdom of Zenobia (some? ... well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: the Gallic sub-kingdom (some? ... well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: the Gallic Partial () and the Palmyrenean part of Zenobia (some? ... Well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: The Gallic part (some? ... Well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: The Gallic sub-kingdom () and the Palmyrenian sub-kingdom of Zenobia (some? ... Well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: The Gallic sub-realm (some? ... Well, ... there were exactly 2: rolleyes :: The Gallic partial kingdom () un d the Palmyrenean sub-kingdom of Zenobia () The other sub-kingdoms existed mainly in the late period of Rome: Britain's independence under Carausius and Allectus in the last years of BC
Submitted by Maxdorfer on October 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm
The following, somewhat complicated visualization is also interesting for all those interested in the Roman Empire: When looking at it, note the extremely long reigns of the adoptive emperors and the Valentinian - Theodosian dynasty, which can be seen even without zooming, and the soldier emperors or emperors of the imperial crisis, which can hardly be deciphered even when zooming in 3rd century. Here you get a very good illustration of the reigns!
Submitted by Maxdorfer on October 30, 2011 at 4:22 pm
A lot has been said about this, but when I sifted through my books I somehow came to the conclusion that the downfall of the Western Roman Empire was really sealed quite late. For this - I admit - an end to the migration of peoples would have been necessary. Had the Valentinian - Theodosian dynasty followed more determined emperors than Marcian in the east and Petronius Maximus in the west, a new dynasty succeeding the Valentinian - Theodosian dynasty could have achieved the survival of western Rome. Perhaps even the Valentinian - Theodosian dynasty (no, I am not afraid to torment you a third time with this name;): D) could have stayed in power.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on October 30, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I admit that I once agreed with you on this. Nevertheless, I would be interested in what distinguishes Anthemius from, for example, Libius Severus (who ruled for almost as long) or Julius Nepos. Were there any military successes, effective reforms, or promising dynastic plans that I somehow overlooked? VG The Maxdorfer
Submitted by Maxdorfer on October 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Find the link very interesting. Good representation of the individual Kasier or their reigns.
Submitted by WDPG on October 30, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Anthemius is no longer the one in which he reigned. Libius Severus was a pure Ricimer puppet. Almost nothing is known about him, he rarely appeared in public and the real power lay with his master Ricimer. Julius Nepos belonged to a part of the empire in Illyria with the help or at least toleration of the East, he swung himself up to become the West Emperor. But in the west he did not achieve much - he was soon driven out again by Orestes, who made his son Romulus Augustus emperor. Julius Nepos hardly had anything to build on, he fled to the east. Anthemius was brought to the western throne with the help of the East. He was also supported by the ruler in Illyria. He used this support on the one hand to restore a minimum degree of order in Gaul and on the other hand he tried again seriously to stop the decline of the western empire by trying to recapture North Africa. In addition he
Submitted by WDPG on October 30, 2011 at 9:17 pm
2 possibly interesting links to postings on the topic: To the mentioned Roman part of Illyria / Dalmatia: To the power struggle between Ricimer and Anthemius: #
Submitted by WDPG on October 30, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I also think that he was the last really Roman emperor, the last emperor to represent the Roman Empire. I don't think, however, that he stopped or could have stopped the fall of the empire - unlike Majorian.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on October 31, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Why do you think Majorian is so much stronger? If Anthemius had succeeded in wrestling the vandals in North Africa (which Belisarius / Justininan succeeded in the east some time later), one would have had access to the important source of supply and finance in North Africa again. The Reich's financial hardship would have been alleviated and the danger of vandals would have been eliminated. A better foundation laid, perhaps one from which a lot could have been achieved. The situation was similar with Maiorian, but Anthemius had a stronger army available (also because of the massive help from the East) than Maiorian. That this was a better emperor can be. Some historians value one, some the other higher.
Submitted by WDPG on October 31, 2011 at 9:38 pm
He actually defended the empire his entire reign and appears to have been a 'royal' figure. Of course, ancient flattery is exaggerated. I think Majorianus is said to have even walked through Kathargo with dyed hair, according to a later writer, in order to find out the mood of the population. In the end it doesn't matter which emperor was better, because originally I just wanted to find out what great things Anthemius achieved. My opinion remains: The Roman Empire failed because of the successors of the Valentinian - Theodosian dynasty, who did not manage to hold the empire even under the influence of half- and all-Germanic military leaders.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on November 1st, 2011 at 11:23 am
I think that would be too easy. Find a number of factors played a role in the fall of Rome in the west. Many of these factors began well before the end of the Theodosian dynasty. On Theodosius I, the dynasty hardly produced any good emperors anyway. Theodosius heir to the west, Honorius, was dependent on some advisers throughout his life.The empire was already under hard pressure at that time, otherwise army master Stilicho would not have had to withdraw soldiers from the border to defend the center of the empire. This policy failed because Honorius had Stilicho murdered. The result: Now the Visigoths found themselves plundering in the center of the empire and on the edges of the Roman empire it was not too difficult for the Teutons to penetrate. As early as 410 the empire was in dire straits. A situation that capable army masters like Constantius III or Aethius were able to stabilize again halfway. But there had undoubtedly already been a decline. This became vers
Submitted by WDPG on November 1st, 2011 at 11:52 am
Of course, the empire was already 'sick' in the time of the Valentinian - Theodosian dynasty. However, when this was not followed by a more capable dynasty or a better system - at that point, I believe the empire was lost. At the time of the Valentiniansch - Theodosian dynasty I can see the empire already sinking, but I think there would have been ways to save it from complete sinking, to move it into safe waters and to make it 'seaworthy' again. The empire had survived the Roman crisis of the 3rd century.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on November 1st, 2011 at 3:54 pm
If you want to see it that way, then it applies consistently to all dynasties since Augustus, and also, and especially before, to the republic. The worm was always in there somewhere, even if it was only (but mostly drastic) economic crises and disease epidemics. It would have been more important to have the magistri militum done without any interference. An institutional framework should have been given to the factual framework. At the crucial point in time, an octavian was missing. Whereby he slipped past a total defeat several times, and North Africa and even Adrianople were only lost through a lot of bad luck (double bad luck was that the barbarians had NOT won through ability, because then they would have
Submitted by RedScorpion on November 1st, 2011 at 20:34 o'clock
Sure would have been a possibility. Rome would be e.g. Honorius would have been better off not having Stilicho murdered.
Submitted by WDPG on November 1st, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Submitted by Maxdorfer on November 2nd, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Just on TV: Nero made his end perfectly himself. By making a bizarre appearance in front of the Senate. He claimed in all seriousness that he could appease the rebels against Rome by auditioning for days. Thereupon the last faithful fell away. He was declared an enemy of the state and was outlawed. He fled to a property but was quickly recognized and liquidated. Conclusion, although he was not mentally ill in the sense of insane, but megalomaniac beyond doubt and could have made a career as an extravagant actor and artist of stature, even by Roman standards at the time. But as Emperor of the Romans, He was utterly unsuitable.
Submitted by lorginn on November 7th, 2011 at 1:39 am
Nero was so convinced of himself as an artist that he went on a 'Greece tour' in 67. It is even said to have been successful. The resurgence of Hellenism can be seen as a positive aspect of its rule. Nevertheless, I would say that Neo was not only megalomaniac, but in my opinion was a psychopath to whom his mother, stepbrother, wife, lover, advisors like Seneca or Christians like Peter or Paul fell victim. And since no one could be safe from his arbitrariness, he was forced to commit suicide in 68. VG Sansavoir
Submitted by Sansavoir on 07.11.2011 at 04:49 o'clock
Massimo Fini doesn't tell you anything, does he? LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on 07.11.2011 at 12:57 o'clock
But. But at the moment I only have the Nero biography of Jacques Robichon within reach. :)
Submitted by Sansavoir on November 7th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
You are absolutely right. As far as I know, he only killed his wife (trampled to death) because he had mistakenly understood that she found his singing imperfect. An uncomfortable fellow, but not really insane.
Submitted by Maxdorfer on November 7th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
... and that is why he was endowed with messianic attributes until the Middle Ages and pilgrimages were carried out to Rome, hoped for his resurrection or believed that he was not dead at all? LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on November 9th, 2011 at 23:31 o'clock
That seems like a contradiction, you're right. But Nero was really totally unable to rule the Roman Empire. Lorginn explained that exactly and I brought a receipt. Even during Nero's reign, the aristocratic-senatorial historians had enough foresight to notice what caused Nero's (sometimes too) poor reception in literature and thus in film and television to this day. With the people, however, Nero was by no means unpopular. I don't know exactly what Nero did for this reputation, but there was the usual thing that was done by Roman emperors over and over again: donations of money and food to the population, tax cuts, circus performances, horse races - panem et circensis, Bread and games ... and a little bit of propaganda. This explains the pilgrimages (carried out by the people) and the numerous usurpers who pretended to be Nero and who, above all, are supported by the population
Submitted by Maxdorfer on November 10th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
The only historian from Nero's time whose works have survived to this day is Flavius ​​Josephus, who deals with Nero, since he certainly knew Poppaea, if not the emperor himself. Tacitus, Cassius Dio and Suetonius are significantly later (and all of them compromised, whereby only Suetonius takes the trouble to name the contemporary witnesses from whom he is copying or pretending to be copying). Pliny the Elder, Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus - nerocritical in the writings - wrote after Nero's death; unfortunately their works regarding Nero are lost. We know from Josephus Flavius ​​that there were also positive critical writings. In the 4th century, Sixtus Aurelius Victor states that there are sources that ignored or did not know Tacitus and Suetonius. And then there is of course archeology, coin science, epigraphs, etc. But it is there
Submitted by RedScorpion on November 10th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Does not withstand a critical examination. Apart from the fact that intrigues of families, dynasties and palaces are by no means the exception, but rather the rule, it is documented, for example, that he killed neither his wife nor his child; Paul was verifiably acquitted, and there was never a persecution of Christians under Nero (unlikely for that reason alone, because Nero possibly counted himself among the Christians, at least for a time, which his nickname 'Porréfresser' speaks for). LG
Submitted by RedScorpion on November 10th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
So wasn't he executed at all? Huh ?? At least I have now learned that the persecution of Christians was strongest under Nero. Could you please cite a source for both statements?
Submitted by Fabian on 11.11.2011 at 21:17 o'clock