Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 1 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 1 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Greatest emperors ... if only they were not cut short in their prime  (Read 1833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
So, we had a great discussion on the greatest emperors (using whatever criteria we thought appropriate). How about the greatest near-emperors or greatest just-emperors. I know nothing about the empire but I'll start with some Republican suggestions

- Gaius Gracchus (Tribune of Plebs, assassinated 121 BC in his unconstitutional second year of office after a host  of reforms)

- Marcus Livius Drusus (also a Tribune and a reformer, assassinated 91 BC after proposing a host of reforms)

- Gaius Julius Caesar (we all know who he was... assassinated after just 17 days as Dictator for Life).

That these three were dictators or tribunes, rather than consuls or other executive magistrates should not be a surprise. Tribunes or dictators could enact legislation (well the former needed the support of the people) whereas consuls could execute legislation and senators could enact money-bills and executive appointments only, thus maintaining the status quo.

Though my view of the early empire is a bit dim, perhaps the following might fit the category:

- Germanicus
- Britannicus (?)
- Titus
- Julian (back to the Ancient Gods, did he not die early)

Others on this list could no doubt sing their praises and that of others

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
I nominate Agrippa. Without him, Octavian would never have become the Emperor Augustus. When Augustus became seriously ill in 23BC, had he died, Agrippa would almost certainly have become Emperor.

 "He is the supreme example in history of a man of the first order whom loyalty constrains to take the second place."
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline Syltorian

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Well, according to Augustus (and whoever helped him chose the Summi Viri of the Forum of Augustus), there are L. Aemilius Paullus, L. Albinius, M. Caecilius Metellus (uncertain which one), Ap. Claudius Caecus, L. Cornelius Sulla Felix, C. Duilius, Q. Fabius Maximus, C. Fabricius Luscinus, M. Furius Camillus, L. Licinius Lucullus, C. Marius, L. Papirius Cursor, A. Postumius Regillensis, Romulus, P. Scipio Aemilianus, L. Scipio Asiaticus, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, Sentius Saturninus, M. Valerius Corvinus, M' Valerius Maximus. (Jane DeRose Evans, The Art of Persuasion:
Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus
, University of Michigan Press, 01.09.1992, with explanations).

Personally, using the criteria for military glory, it would have to be either Q. Fabius Maximus or L. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (the latter did not do so well politically, as success seems to have become a little too hard to bear with due modesty, unless those stories are propaganda by his own enemies). Cicero would get my vote for someone who got immensely far given his background problems (being a New Man), and also for political and legal ability (however varied his success was). Pompey should appear for sheer grandeur, and where legislation is concerned, the authors of the leges Cassia (secret vote in court), Gabinia tabellaria (secret votes in elections), Hortensia (making the popular assembly's decisions law), and Porcia (three laws dealing with provocatio and related rights)... I hesitate to nominate the Decemviri responsible for the XII Tables, partly because of Ap. Claudius' behaviour, which again might be later anti-Claudian propaganda.

The "problem" with the Republic is that each year might bring great man or absolute failures, and there are simply too many to chose from depending on which criteria you want to chose for your judgement.

As far as the early empire goes, Agrippa, possibly Maecenas, and Corbulo, who never got the chance to get as far as emperor or even managed to be considered for the job; Otho, provided he could have lived with the same spirit he died, Pertinax and Probus for emperors who were doing well but did not get enough time.




Offline Andrew McCabe

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4651
    • My website on Roman Republican Coins and Books, with 2000 coins arranged per Crawford
So ... respecting Augustus' choice of the Summi Viri of the Forum of Augustus, I guess I was thinking less of "Noble Romans" but rather of "Imperial Romans". We had much the same discussion around the Greatest Emperor thread where I argued that Megalomania and sheer Imperialness had to be part of the job description. Thus, Caesar, M.Livius Drusus, the Gracchi.  Many of those on Augustus' list would be Imperial enough. Sulla, Marius, Scipio. But all these had their chances and their time at the top.So they were Emperors after a fashion - not cut short by any means.

Who were the great short-termers who might have been a Sulla or Nero?

Offline David Atherton

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • The meaning of life can be found in a coin.
    • Flavian Fanatic Blog
Who were the great short-termers who might have been a Sulla or Nero?

Titus possibly. Cassius Dio even said as much: "His satisfactory record may also have been due to the fact that he survived his accession but a very short time, for he was thus given no opportunity for wrongdoing." ( Cassius Dio, Roman History LXVI.18) 

Conversely, if Domitian had only survived until 83 or 84 would history look upon him kindly? I think so.

Offline Optimo Principi

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 604
By all accounts, Germanicus would have made a wonderful emperor. The way he conducted himself on the German campaigns, his inspiring speeches to troops, his suicidal loyalty to the emperor even when being offered the throne, his return to the Teutoberg battle site to bury the dead, his family-man persona ..all in all he seemed like a decent guy with excellent leadership qualities. The systematic destruction of his large family by Tiberius is one of the great tragic episodes of the early empire, Caligula of course being the last one left. I'm sure had he survived to raise Caligula in a decent manner, he would have turned out far better.

Offline Syltorian

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Who were the great short-termers who might have been a Sulla or Nero?

Ah, got you.

As regards the Republic and off the top of my head:

From legend (history is going to be difficult here), Coriolanus, who decided his talents were not recognized enough, so he went over to the enemy and attacked Rome. Would probably have taken it, too, had not his own mother scolded him and made him retreat. A similar person might have been Manlius Capitolinus, the man who saved the Capitol from the Gauls by being the first to raise the alarm after being woken by the sacred Geese; he was finally thrown from the Tarpeian Rock - also on the Capitol - for seeking kingship. The charge may have been trumped up, though. All of this holds for all the victims who were said to have attempted Regium.

Ap. Claudius Caecus, a chief member of the Decemviri who held sway over the state while composing the XII Tables, the basis of Roman written law. The Decemviri were loathe to let go of their power and caused no little problems. Ap. Cladius was probably the worst of the lot, if the stories are to be believed (that's a big "if", considering the remote time). The story of Verginia, where he attempted to get a girl he lusted for declared a runaway slave by one of his clients, so he could have her, is a case in point; her daddy returned hotfoot from the camp to kill the poor girl, in order to save her being handed over to Claudius by corrupt judges. The Claudian family, men and women, was ever famous for their arrogance, right down to Nero, even though he was only adopted!

L. Cornelius Scipio Africanus began leading armies at an almost unheard of young age, defeated Carthage by first invading Spain whilst Hannibal was still in Italy, then by taking on Africa itself, and learned from and then surpassed Hannibal. Back home, he was later renowned for talking to Jupiter Capitolinus, being rather arrogant towards regular citizen, and ultimately ending up dying in mysterious circumstances in a villa after having exiled himself from Rome. The megalomania and his undoubted competence should qualify him.

Cn. Pompeius Magnus, not dictator but at various points holder of imperium maius (topping everyone else in the provinces) along the entire Mediterranean and the hinterland, which basically meant the entire territory of republican Rome and sole consul. Cicero himself acknowledged that the battle was not between Caesar and the Republic, but between Caesar and Pompey, and that either one would do what Caesar eventually did. Pompey's "imperialness" can also be seen in his attempt to hold his triumph in a quadriga of elephants rather than horses (though he only got as far as the city gates, which were too small for Pompey's ambition), his curly-Alexander-the-Great-hair, and his building the first permanent stone theatre in Rome.

As regards the Early Empire

Q. Egnatius Rufus, executed by Augustus for posing a direct challenge to him by creating Rome's first public firebrigade when he was an aedile, a deed that permitted him to jump straight to praetor. Or would have, had Augustus not intervened. And stolen his idea, soon afterwards, and created the Vigiles.

Julia Caesaris. Being the daughter of Augustus should give you a head start, but her own behaviour and a rumour mill stirred by the Claudian faction in the imperial household got her exiled, despite being the mother of Augustus' adored and adopted sons Caius and Lucius, who themselves did not really demonstrate any flamboyant imperialness and died young.

L. Aelius Sejanus. Brutal, but competent, rising from a virtual nobody to the head of state whilst Tiberius was off brooding on Capri. He was virtually the emperor for those years, carefully eliminating any rivals and paving his way to marry into the imperial household, which was denied him. Tiberius had to resort to a careful ploy to get rid of him: invite him to the Senate House supposedly to be promoted even further, then withdraw the loyal (to Sejanus) Praetorian Guard outside to replace them by the Urban Cohorts (who hated the Praetorians), while praising Sejanus in a letter which suddenly turned into an accusation. Sejanus was dead before the day was over; but the threat the commander of the Praetorian Guard posed was clearly great.  


By all accounts, Germanicus would have made a wonderful emperor. The way he conducted himself on the German campaigns, his inspiring speeches to troops, his suicidal loyalty to the emperor even when being offered the throne, his return to the Teutoberg battle site to bury the dead, his family-man persona ..all in all he seemed like a decent guy with excellent leadership qualities. The systematic destruction of his large family by Tiberius is one of the great tragic episodes of the early empire, Caligula of course being the last one left. I'm sure had he survived to raise Caligula in a decent manner, he would have turned out far better.

Unfortunately, "all accounts" are basically Tacitus, who uses Germanicus as a counter and as a mirror to Tiberius, whom he detests. Reading deeper and comparing with other sources, there are some serious problems with Germanicus. He got on well with the soldiers, no doubt, and solved the mutiny with great aplomb. But his German Campaign was a disaster, his discovery of the Teutoburg Forest battlefield both against direct orders and highly demoralising to his troops, his behaviour in Syria offensive against the official governor, L. Piso, and threatening the peace, and his visit to Egypt was outright illegal for any Senator. Tiberius, who was a rather stern and no-nonsense man, with some possibly republican ambitions, stood against a man who played the favor of the people against him (willingly or not) and tended to act on impulse. The old family-strife between the Julian and the Claudian factions made life rather difficult anyway: Agrippina the Elder was no innocent victim, but as active a plotter for the Julian side as Livia Augusta was for the Claudian; most of the family was eradicated by Sejanus with little contribution (or even knowledge, in some cases) from Tiberius. Remember also that Caligula had three sisters who survived Tiberius, and one of them, Agrippina the Younger, would marry Claudius - and possibly do him in - to bring Germanicus' grandson, Nero, on the throne - Nero was certainly just as popular with the people as his grandfather (Germanicus) and, initially, his uncle (Caligula) had been.

Offline mcbyrne21

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
I always wondered how Gordian III would have turned out had he ruled for another 20-40 years, which would have been plausible given his age when he assumed the purple.  Would the troubles of his youth have turned him into another Caligula once he was old enough to rule in his own right rather than through advisors? Or would he have been upstanding and widely admired like Gordian I & II?  Or would he have tried hard but still been overwhelmed by events, a la Gallenius?

Offline Vincent

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
I would have been eager to have seen the reign of Julian II after the Persian campaign. Julian was a prolific writer and I imagine he would have penned a few more works. I still doubt he would have stopped the spread of Christianity, but his reforms of government and the military may have had a lasting impact.
Also, perhaps he may have ended the war with the Persians with a stalemate. Hard to know. Died in his early 30's.

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity