Roman emperor lives longer
- Thread starter Jan Gronvik
- Start date
My own list would be (in descending order):
1. Trajan
2. Marcus Aurelius
3. Julian the Apostate
1. Trajan
2. Marcus Aurelius
3. Julian the Apostate
1. Trajan, of course, he was pretty much the best emperor and should have never died at all!
2. Hadrian, 62 is remarkable for that era, but he could have lived longer
3. Titus, the joy of mankind.
2. Hadrian, 62 is remarkable for that era, but he could have lived longer
3. Titus, the joy of mankind.
Wouldn't say I care greatly for any Roman - they were a right bunch of bastards and I'm always inclined to cheer for Alaric. If I must pick one I'd go for Elagabalus. If Alfred Duggan can be believed he was relatively harmless and a lot of fun.
Alternatively Claudius. He seems to have been a nicer guy than most of that family.
Alternatively Claudius. He seems to have been a nicer guy than most of that family.
go and speak your ancient anglo-saxon and worship your forest gods, then
by the way, Claudius was a good ruler, probably too much influenced by the people around him, but did try to revert the princeps to a role similar to the one Octavianus held
A lot to choose between, but my pick would be Theodosius I. Lived 347-395, so he had decades of possible emperorship ahead.
During Theodosius I time the Roman Empire could have incorporated the barbarian tribes into Rome, transforming the concept of "Roman" to a more modern, reality-focused meaning. After Theodosius death the roman elite closed ranks and kept "barbarians" such as Stilicho away from power (while they a century before had welcomed the Illyrian generals with Dominitian as the apex), thereby depriving Rome of good potential emperors and instead creating a lot of enemies.
Theodosius had married a niece to Stilicho, ruled (after 392) both the East and the Western empire and was a good general himself. Give Rome 20 years of stability under Theodocius, during which selected barbarians are co-opted into supporting Rome, reinforcing the military, blocking hostile barbarians and maybe have enough time to do some serious restructuring of the civil service (corrupt), tax system (far more corrupt and giving the landowning aristocracy huge advantages) and monetary system (stopping the rampaging inflation that made "money" farily useless).
Even none of above, just 20 years without successor wars, opportunistic invasions after the death of an emperor and chronic backstabbing among the court officials / military leadership would leave Rome far stronger than IOTL. Theodosius I:s sons were 18 and 11 years old when they succeeded him in East and West - and quickly became weak puppets. Let them spend 20 years gaining experience (or give Theodosius time to find good replacements) and the roman decline could be prevented another generation.
During Theodosius I time the Roman Empire could have incorporated the barbarian tribes into Rome, transforming the concept of "Roman" to a more modern, reality-focused meaning. After Theodosius death the roman elite closed ranks and kept "barbarians" such as Stilicho away from power (while they a century before had welcomed the Illyrian generals with Dominitian as the apex), thereby depriving Rome of good potential emperors and instead creating a lot of enemies.
Theodosius had married a niece to Stilicho, ruled (after 392) both the East and the Western empire and was a good general himself. Give Rome 20 years of stability under Theodocius, during which selected barbarians are co-opted into supporting Rome, reinforcing the military, blocking hostile barbarians and maybe have enough time to do some serious restructuring of the civil service (corrupt), tax system (far more corrupt and giving the landowning aristocracy huge advantages) and monetary system (stopping the rampaging inflation that made "money" farily useless).
Even none of above, just 20 years without successor wars, opportunistic invasions after the death of an emperor and chronic backstabbing among the court officials / military leadership would leave Rome far stronger than IOTL. Theodosius I:s sons were 18 and 11 years old when they succeeded him in East and West - and quickly became weak puppets. Let them spend 20 years gaining experience (or give Theodosius time to find good replacements) and the roman decline could be prevented another generation.
my source is "why nations fail" by acemoglu. basically he says that any emperor even the best ones are bringers of stagnation especially in the economic/technological field
Despite the overwhelming evidence of history indicating that this is not true.
Last edited:
The Emperor Titus and the Emperor Aurelian. Titus was showing a lot of promise and Domitian, although not as bad as he's made out to be, wasn't nearly as good an emperor as Titus was shaping up to be.
Aurelian brought the end to the Third Century Crisis and was showing a lot of promise as well. I think he would have possibly done a better job at restructuring/stabilizing the Empire than Diocletian did.
Aurelian brought the end to the Third Century Crisis and was showing a lot of promise as well. I think he would have possibly done a better job at restructuring/stabilizing the Empire than Diocletian did.
"Aurelian brought the end to the Third Century Crisis and was showing a lot of promise as well. I think he would have possibly done a better job at restructuring/stabilizing the Empire than Diocletian did."
Interesting. What reforms do you think Aurelian would have made?
Interesting. What reforms do you think Aurelian would have made?
He only reigned for 5 years so I'm not too sure. Maybe once I get my hands on Aurelian and The Third Century, I might be able to come up with a general outline. Though imo, anything other than the tetrarchy is a step up. It could really work with Diocletian and his friends and them only.
To stabilize the Northern border and do something about the inflation would go a long way for Aurelian.
I've once read quite an interesting book by Massimo Fini titled Nero - 2000 years of diffamation that painted a rather positive picture of his reign and intentions.