- This topic has 3 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
Who do you think were the most significant Roman emperors? In other words, if you had to study them in some order based on their power/influence/significance, what would it be? Here's my list:1. Augustus2. Hadrian3. Trajan4. Constantine5. Diocletian6. Tiberius7. Nero8. Vespasian9. Marcus Aurelius10. Antoninus Pius
I'd place Constantine at #2. The rest is in good order. I find Hadrian much more interesting, but maybe switch Hadrian and Trajan too only because Hadrian pretty much continued Trajan's policies or made new policies in reaction to something Trajan did. (withdrawing from Mesopotamia for instance)
I would rank Constantine lower because hs splitting the Empire actually weakened it. He made an organizational change that should have been remedied by reform of the way in which provincial governors were chosen. Instead he created two competing power blocks that fatally weakened the western empire because the Eastern Emperors then had no incentive to assist their brethren in the west when they were invaded by the Visigoths. Instead, the easterners adopted a bunker mentality.
I would rank Constantine lower because hs splitting the Empire actually weakened it.
Yes, but couldn't one argue that his decisions and the results of them were very significant?
They wer significant, but i would rank Emperors based on their benefits to the empire. Isnt doing good things for your empire part and parcel of the job description? By that logic then Carter could be considered a good president too, he certainly had a significant impact on the US.
I agree with you, scout, for the most part, but to argue against you more ( ;D ) I would say the eastern empire had a very positive influence on the future of Europe and the spread of Christianity.
I would say the eastern empire had a very positive influence on the future of Europe and the spread of Christianity.
I would agree abut the contributions of the Byzantines, they saved a lot of ancient knowledge that we would not have if it wasnt for them; plus they fought off the Muslims in the east for almost 800 years and shielded the Christian west. I just think that the Empire did not need to be split if Constantine had been slightly more far-sighted and introspective about what he was doing when he split it.
I'd place Constantine at #2. The rest is in good order. I find Hadrian much more interesting, but maybe switch Hadrian and Trajan too only because Hadrian pretty much continued Trajan's policies or made new policies in reaction to something Trajan did. (withdrawing from Mesopotamia for instance)
True, Trajan and Hadrian could possibly be changed around. I guess I put Hadrian first because my field makes me more biased toward him. Although Trajan defeated the Dacians and started the accumulation of their wealth, Hadrian really seems to have used the Dacian booty to flex Rome's prestige, possibly like no other time in its history.
I would rank Constantine lower because hs splitting the Empire actually weakened it. He made an organizational change that should have been remedied by reform of the way in which provincial governors were chosen. Instead he created two competing power blocks that fatally weakened the western empire because the Eastern Emperors then had no incentive to assist their brethren in the west when they were invaded by the Visigoths. Instead, the easterners adopted a bunker mentality.
Scout - Diocletian was really the emperor who divided the empire, so perhaps you take more issue with him at #5 (I believe Constantine actually consolidated the divided empire after he defeated Licinius, which is why the former was able to have his pick of where he wanted to reside as emperor).You could well be right that Diocletian weakened the empire by dividing it, though I'm sure that this is a debate that historians could go on for a while about with competing arguments. But it's a good and interesting debate (I think this is the closest thread we have on that topic).I realize that opinions naturally will differ about assessments regarding "significance" (half the fun of such lists) but I will say that I put Diocletian at #5 because I felt he saw the mounting threat to Rome's long term success and he did something about it, which changed the course of the empire (and world history). One could also say that his harsh persecution of the Christians played a part in Christianity's early growth and as a kind of catalyst for monasticism.
I stand corrrected. You know, I never really researched it in depth and have always thought Constantine split the Empire. I guess I was wrong and should fact-check myself better and not just go with my assumptions and what I think I remember from high school.However, in that case, I would move Diocletian. I still think Constantine does not rank as high. I am not convinced Christianity was good for the Empire, especially the early pacific brand of Christianity.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
