|
Posts:
4
Registered:
1/15/05
|
|
(1 of 11)
Jan 15, 2005 9:54 AM
|
|
who do you think was the most UNDERRATED Roman emperor and why?
|
|
|
Posts:
11
Registered:
2/4/05
|
|
(2 of 11)
Feb 4, 2005 3:25 PM
|
|
The most underrated emperor would be the one who's name I forgot.
|
|
|
Posts:
317
Registered:
3/7/04
|
|
(3 of 11)
Apr 1, 2005 4:50 AM
|
|
Before the XXth century, perhaps the most underrated Emperor was Claudius. He was not a bad Emperor, despite his bad health and that he had inherited the Empire from Caligula, but the History shown him as a fool and an evil person... But this image changed thanks to Robert Graves I, Claudius.
|
|
|
Posts:
4
Registered:
6/4/05
|
|
(4 of 11)
Jun 9, 2005 7:53 AM
|
|
Well I think most of Roman emperors were underrated.You can only list some of them like Augustus caesar,Nero & some 1 or 2 emperors.If an empire is established in a way that should not be,then u can see the Roman empire as an example.How should an empire be can be defined by knowing Indian history,except muslim dynasties & british raj.
|
|
|
Posts:
4
Registered:
6/4/05
|
|
(5 of 11)
Jun 9, 2005 7:54 AM
|
|
Well I think most of Roman emperors were underrated.You can only list some of them like Augustus caesar,Nero & some 1 or 2 emperors.If an empire is established in a way that should not be,then u can see the Roman empire as an example.How should an empire be can be defined by knowing Indian history,except muslim dynasties & british raj.
|
|
|
Posts:
4
From:
Stafford, Texas
Registered:
1/1/08
|
|
(6 of 11)
Jan 1, 2008 10:13 AM
|
Since I have just recently joined this forum, I apologize for this very late reply. I agree with you that Emperor Claudius was one of the more underrated of the Roman emperors. He was not a fool--and as he said himself in Graves' Claudius the God (and this is a paraphrase from a faulty memory--mine) "I may be a fool but I have survived with half my brains whereas some with all of their faculties have not!"
Yep, sounds underrated to me! A pity that he didn't understand the ambitions of the women in his life.
|
|
|
Posts:
71
From:
Evansville, Indiana, USA
Registered:
5/13/06
|
|
(7 of 11)
Feb 23, 2008 7:57 AM
|
All of the Roman Emperors were underrated. In reading the histories of the Empire it is useful to remember that the only histories we have are from the Aristocrats. The Aristocrats hated the Emperors whose power was based on catering to the populist or democratic elements of society. It is as though the only history we had of Bill and Hillary Clinton was written by Republican Radio Talk Show personalities.
All of the Roman Emperors were basically Socialist Democratic Dictators. Not unlike Hugo Chavez in Venezuela today.
The Aristocrats liked having power over the poor and slaves but hated having an Emperor who commanded the same power and authority over them.
I suspect that most of the Emperors were not as bad as history records.
|
|
|
Posts:
63
From:
Bangor, ME 04401
Registered:
2/10/08
|
|
(8 of 11)
Feb 23, 2008 10:53 AM
|
|
They all should be underrated. LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC11111
|
|
|
Posts:
71
From:
Evansville, Indiana, USA
Registered:
5/13/06
|
|
(9 of 11)
Mar 26, 2008 8:48 AM
|
After some thought, Commodus. Most of you probably know him from the movie "Gladiator", which was a remake of a hollywood epic "The Fall of Rome". Both tell the story of the death of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the accession of his son Commodus, and the death of Commodus in the arena fighting one of his generals who became a gladiator. The story is not historical. It is a great story though, love both those movies. Commodus was killed in his home being poisoned by his wife Marcia and strangled by a wrestler Narcissus he kept around for workouts at the command of the Senate.
Commodus has come down to us as one of the worst of the Emperors. Wikipedia has a quite decent writeup on him.
It is worth noting that Nature magazine surveyed the articles in Wikipedia and found them generally as accurate as the major print encyclopedias. You can do a Google to find out more about that if you wish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
There is only one mention of war in the writeup a brief one with Dacia. However, for the most part his reign was one of peace and security for the Empire.
Consider. Marcus Aurelius his father had to defend Rome from invasions by Parthia and the Germans. Commodus did not.
Why, if Commodus was such a bad ruler did none of the neighboring powers see weakness in Rome to be taken advantage of?
It seems to me that neighboring powers observed this man fighting lions in the Arena every morning before breakfast and decided that starting a war with such an obviously warlike ruler would be unwise. After all, the shy, bookish philosopher his father Marcus Aurelius had defeated them, what would happen if they provoked the warlike son?
He does seem to have gone totally wonkers at the end of his reign, well, absolute power, and all of that.
I do think that there are lessons to be learned from Emperors like Commodus in foreign policy.
He had himself portrayed as Hercules carrying a club. Though he did not believe in talking softly. Neither did Teddy Roosevelt either.
His success may have been accidental, but he was basically a successful and popular emperor. The people and the army both liked and supported him.
|
|
|
Posts:
3
From:
Minnesota
Registered:
3/26/08
|
|
(10 of 11)
Apr 1, 2008 7:51 PM
|
|
I would pick Constantine. I realize he is the Eastern Empire, but I think that's why he's underrated. Alternatively, I would pick one of the emperor's during the 3rd century crisis for the western empire. Roman life was unravelling, and was loosing it's aura of power. There were the barbarians at the gate... no pun intended...
|
|
|
Posts:
10
From:
NJ,USA
Registered:
7/24/08
|
|
(11 of 11)
Jul 31, 2008 9:20 PM
|
|
i dont think all roman leaders were underrated.julius caeser wasnt really bad.i think nero was the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
