Roman emperors

[lombas]

Which Roman emperor is your favorite?

I nominate Caligula.

Probably the most brilliant, passionate, emperor. Ever. And he kicked those aristocrats right in the *s*!


PS: No, Justinian was not a cool Roman emperor. Byzantium was a city-state, whatever Belisarius did. "Eastern-Roman" is a hoax, dammit!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nero was a true man of the people.

[Pirate Utopian]

Nero The Emporer.

[Patchd]

Caligula got infants to suckle on his penis.

I vote Hadrian cos he built a fucking wall.

[Mindtoaster]

Caligula got infants to suckle on his penis.


Well, I know who my favorite emperor was then.

[Mindtoaster]

Well, I know who my favorite emperor was then.

I actually just disgusted myself >_<

[spartan]

Caligula got infants to suckle on his penis.

He did?

Anyway though he put down a revolt of my ancestors I like Nero myself.

[lombas]

Caligula got infants to suckle on his penis.


I think you mean Tiberius, at Capri?

Well, maybe Caligula got into that himself a bit, but anyway....

[apathy maybe]

I like all the dead ones. (The only good emperor is a dead one.)

[Holden Caulfield]

I vote Hadrian cos he built a fucking wall.
i can spit on Hadrians with a mere 5 min walks

[Angry Young Man]

Nero should get the musicians' vote.

As for Caligula, why didn't he just get Palachinov, ffs?

[Killfacer]

i can spit on Hadrians with a mere 5 min walks

Bloody northerners, always spitting.

I will go with Hadrian, he was both intelligent and successful.

[Angry Young Man]

Whichever one was the most indulgent, lascivious and dionysian of them

[Sentinel]

Caligula got infants to suckle on his penis.That was Tiberius actually, on the island of Capri where he ruled from for the last years of his office. Lot's of other stuff took place there too.

The Julio-Claudian dynasty was made up of strange people. I've read a few books on them -- biographies over Tiberius and Nero, and the book most of the imperial biographies are largely based on, Suetonius' Emperor Biographies. In conclusion one could say that some were able statesmen, while others were complete nutjobs. All of them would naturally by todays standards, and especially leftist standards, be considered horrible tyrants.

Augustus, who is seen as the first proper 'emperor' was a calculating person. He was sure to leave most of the traditional offices and customs of the republic intact, while either lessening their influence or gathering them for himself. Officially he was mostly referred to as First Senator (Princeps Senatus in latin. This is where the english word 'Prince' originates. The word Emperor comes from Imperator, which was originally a military title during the republic). This way the shift from republic to empire was a gradual, covert one.

Augustus was the only emperor of the dynasty dying of old age, even though Tiberius came pretty close as well. He apparently a decent general and jurist, and thus did well as Princeps in amny ways, but became very impopular and tyrannical especially towards the end of his regime (when he saw it safest to move his residence to Capri). Issuing orders from Capri he had loads of aristocrats, including most of his own family members, executed. While being isolated he was at the mercy of his contacts in Rome, who abused his trust to their advantage in the political game.

When he in his seventies finally was about to die, he recovered when his nephew Gaius Caesar (known as Caligula) had already jumped the gun by taking his signet ring and proclaiming himself emperor. He was then assassinated by the leader of the Praetorian Guard to save Caligula's life and rule. Caligula only ruled for a few years, during which he descended into some kind of mental disorder, possibly schizofrenia. He is for sure the funniest emperor to read about, but certainly not to live under.

He started out with some minor excentrities, for instance made it illegal to look at him from above (because he was bald), and making a war party to the coast of the northern sea, from which he brought sea shells as bounty. But later on he went further, he could summarily execute or humiliate anyone in his presence, planned on making his horse a consul or senator, etc. He was killed by the Praetorian Guard, and succeeded by his uncle Claudius, wh had survived all the battles and strifes within the family so far because he was considered simple-minded. There was talk about reinstating the republic, and the imperial bodyguards were afraid of becoming unemployed, so they installed Claudius on the throne after killing Caligula.

Claudius was a more able ruler however, he was the one under whom Britain permanently was conquered for the empire. He was very well-read, and had written some history books himself. He was killed (poisoned) by his niece and wife Agrippina the Younger, however, who thus got the opportunity to put her own son Nero on the throne. Nero was the one that strikes me as most sympathetic of the Julio-Claudians, and not merely because the christians hated him.

He didn't want to be an emperor, but an artist. He sang and performed to music, wrote poetry etc. This behavior was looked down upon by most, but one had better not to insult the emperor as an artist. For instance the future emperor Vespasian once fell asleep during Nero's performance and was only saved by his high level contacts.

Despite providing food and shelter for the victims he was soon blamed for starting the great fire of Rome (with the motive that he wanted to rebuild it better). I'm not sure if that was what really happened, but it is said that his advisors at that point told him to find a scapegoat in the Christians, who were already despised by many due to their ascetism, pacifism, holierthanthou-attitude etc. The Christians were seriously persecuted for the first time during his reign. Thus he has over the time become painted as a lunatic as bad as Caligula, which I doubt is very objective.

He was a gentle boy who initially shunned violence and wanted to transform the bloody arenas into theatres, etc. But the people wanted to see blood at the amphitheatres, so he had to give that ambition up. Nero received a brilliant education. He was taught by Seneca, one of the most learned men of the time, and admired greek philosophy.

He too was murdered after a couple of years, though, and the dynasty of Caesar and Augustus died with him. That was just the beginning of the Roman Empire though, but now I'm too tired to write any more.

As for the PS in the OP:


PS: No, Justinian was not a cool Roman emperor. Byzantium was a city-state, whatever Belisarius did. "Eastern-Roman" is a hoax, dammit!I think it's fair to say that Justinian was still a 'Roman emperor', even though he was one of the last. He spoke latin better than greek and the imperial legal machine etc were still in Latin. I do think that the western description of the eastern Roman Empire as 'the empire of the Greeks' is quite correct after Herakleios (Heraclius) who made the country officially greek-speaking, adopted the greek title Basileois while dropping Augustus and Caesar, and some drastic administrative reforms that laid the foundation of the medieval Byzantine empire.

The Byzantines did call themselves 'Romans' until the end though.

[Black Dagger]

The Julio-Claudian dynasty was made up of strange people. I've read a few books on them -- biographies over Tiberius and Nero, and the book most of the imperial biographies are largely based on, Suetonius' Emperor Biographies. In conclusion one could say that some were able statesmen, while others were complete nutjobs. All of them would naturally by todays standards, and especially leftist standards, be considered horrible tyrants.


Hmm, i dunno - the history of what are called 'historical personalities' - 'great men' etc. tend to be heavy on the bs side of things. Events are simply made up or exaggerated ditto for depictions of their personalities etc, particularly with polarising figures like roman emperors. I know this is the case with english royal history for example, though i am not so well read on the individuals you mention - this is just a comment on history generally, a caution. That history is always incomplete, the perspectives given are usually very limited and driven by educated guesses or just speculation. This is no more true for the genre of history writing known as 'biography'.

Stuff like this:


Probably the most brilliant, passionate, emperor. Ever.


He was a gentle boy who initially shunned violence and wanted to transform the bloody arenas into theatres, etc. But the people wanted to see blood at the amphitheatres, so he had to give that ambition up. Nero received a brilliant education. He was taught by Seneca, one of the most learned men of the time, and admired greek philosophy.


Which involve speculation as to the inner thoughts and personal behaviours of individuals long since dead, information that is simply unverifiable. This sort of stuff appears a lot in biographies - re-crafting someones life and experiences into a narrative, where things play out with simple cause-and-effect, usually depicting some kind of personal transformation (the 'lesson(s)' they learned in their life). For sure some of this stuff is based on hard-evidence, but our sources from this period of time are very limited - so the standard for supporting evidence is quite low.

Please be sure, i am not criticising you or even stating that you are wrong on anything in particular - i just don't think we should take this sort of history too seriously.

[Sentinel]

Hmm, i dunno - the history of what are called 'historical personalities' - 'great men' etc. tend to be heavy on the bs side of things. Events are simply made up or exaggerated ditto for depictions of their personalities etc, particularly with polarising figures like roman emperors.I am not disagreeing with you, perhaps I should have highlighted this fact more (I was sort of touching on it when I described Nero's relation to the christians and that's effect on his later reputation. It should also be noted that most of the historians describing the Julio-Claudians -- such as Suetonius and Tacitus, were also personally biased against them.

Luckily the modern historians writing biographies today are trying to take these things in account. Maybe they can only succeed to some degree -- but it's fascinating stuff that reveals a lot about the society of then, nevertheless, and I enjoy reading it and telling it further.


Stuff like this:

It is the common perception at the moment, gathered from the sources available while taking the circumstances into account. Obviously many of these sources may or may not be biased, are based on lots of speculation, etc, etc.

But it's not like you are dropping a bomb here telling it. We already know that specific incidents in ancient history should be taken with a grain of salt as a rule.

[Black Dagger]

Luckily the modern historians writing biographies today are trying to take these things in account.

To be sure, but then you have the problem with historians today to contend with as well! :lol: There is still very little self-reflexivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reflexivity) in much history writing, as in the past - so although historians of today may not be bound by the prejudices of roman times but they have their own motivations which must be explored critically by the reader, and to make 'good' history - by the historian themselves.



Maybe they can only succeed to some degree -- but it's fascinating stuff that reveals a lot about the society of then, nevertheless, and I enjoy reading it and telling it further.

Oh for sure! It's still very interesting, and fun to read and talk about. I'm just very weary of claims that we/historians can authentically access the past, and speak on behalf of individuals or to their thoughts or feelings - it does help make the narrative more interesting though. It's just a problem when the people who do this in their writing also maintain the illusion that their writing is 'objective' or 'scientific' rather than a constructed narrative or genre of literature. It reminds me of psychoanalytic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis) history writers, it's just the pits.

EDIT:


But it's not like you are dropping a bomb here telling it. We already know that specific incidents in ancient history should be taken with a grain of salt as a rule.

Hehe, well i wasn't trying to drop any bombs. I guess the point is, a lot of people (and i'm talking about historians here mainly) may pay lip service to this sort of thing - that was more-or-less the 'academy' response to the challenge posed by post-structuralist and other critical theories of history 'meh! We knew that already! Of course we are not all objective!' Etc. But they don't put it into practice. When people say things like i said before, they will acknowledge these shortcomings but you won't read a word of it in their book - maybe on the last few pages or something. But the rest? They speak only with authority, the authentic voice of 'the historian'.

In relation to what you have just said here i say 'indeed!' Of course you are not naive about history or history writing, but i think it is worth reminding others of this - sometimes it can be forgotten, there can be slippage. And i think some people in this thread slipped up when they were speaking about these historical figures; as they were speaking as if they new 'the truth' - with no hestitation or caution in their words - with confidence even, about the personalities of these people - their thoughts, feelings etc. 'Oh so and so here was such a kind man!', 'He really loved the theatre!' It is certainly an understandable approach (by no means a cardinal sin), as this style of thinking is easily learnt from reading biographies of which it forms a large part.

[lombas]

I base what I said about Caligula on an academic biography from Aloys Winterling. Only after reading that book can you understand what really was going on.

Of course, Winterling should be read with caution. He ignores the usual description (of practically every Roman emperor): using power to do no good, executing people without a proper trial, &c.