Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

tk421

Plebes
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    49

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by tk421

  4. Dual leadership workable?

    in Imperium Romanorum

    Posted

    The example of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus is probably the best example of this model. The two worked very much for the good of the Empire and demonstrated that one man rule can work without making the administration of the Empire too difficult for one man to handle.

  6. Gaius Caesar "Caligula" died peacefully

    in Imperium Romanorum

    Posted

    Caligula was just too young to become Emperor. How many emperors before 217AD becoming Emperor at a young age were actually good Emperors? Most of the good ones were well into or past their prime by the time they rose to the top job in Rome so they often had requisite experience and qualifications to do well in their new role.

     

    The fact that Caligula was insane made it such that he probably would have died a violent death before long anyway.

  7. Galba and Nerva - similarity

    in Imperium Romanorum

    Posted

    When Nero fell this was the first time that there was no clear succession policy for the position of Emperor. Yes Galba did not have the full support of the legions, but from what I read he also faced competitors almost right away as happened in 193AD when Pertinax died. Galba fought and failed to secure his new position. This continued until Vespasian won control of the Empire. The year 68AD was the year of the four emperors (Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius) and the year 193AD is often referred to as the year of the five emperors (Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Septimius Severus and his two rivals Niger and Albinus).

     

    Nerva fared better, he was appointed by the Senate and supported by at least Trajan so this worked fine. By adopting Trajan as his successor Nerva stablized the Roman political climate and even though his rule lasted only a short time he is referred to as the first of the five good emperors in Roman history.

     

    My sources? Too many to mention but to summarize if you start with wikipedia the info is largely genuine and if you substantiate it with other printed sources than it makes for a simplified and brief history of the Roman Empire.

  10. Augustus, good or bad emperor?

    in Imperium Romanorum

    Posted

    I would say that Augustus was by far one of the best Roman Emperors, and not because he was the first.

     

    He did very well against overwhelming odds to consolidate his control of the Roman world and worked tirelessly to make the Empire work. Everything I read about him points to very strong leadership and even leadership by example as he lived quite a frugal lifestyle despite his vast wealth.

     

    He outwitted strong opponents like Marc Antony and ended the civil wars that had plagued the Empire for so long.

     

    When faced with setbacks like Varus's defeat in Germany in 9AD Augustus took the right steps to ensure a stable northern policy that would last centuries.

     

    As for his succession, from what I understand he made several attempts to establish a clear policy. The problem was these 'suitors' to the highest office died during Augustus's 44 year rule. People like Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius, and Postumus all died or were banished so it was very difficult for him to select a better candidate than Tiberius. Being careful not to invoke the popular literature, I would say that he did a very good job, much better than Marcus Aurelius did with his succession. Tiberius was very qualified for the position and well groomed for it, so much so that by 13AD he shared full powers with Augustus.

     

    I would certainly say that Augustus was a very good Roman Emperor.

  11. Marcus Aurelius was a bad + military leader

    in Imperium Romanorum

    Posted · Edited by tk421

    If I recall correctly Marcus Aurelius had wanted to continue the wars in the north and subdue the Germanic tribes north of the Rhine-Danube frontier. When he died in 180 his son Commodus reversed Marcus Aurelius's northern policy and made peace with the barbarians. This peace lasted quite some time but as some historians have pointed out, may have been bad for the Empire in the long term.

     

    Marcus Aurelius may not have been a great military leader but his policies were just and he is recorded in History for being a very strong leader and great Emperor. The Empire could have done much worse in this period as the challenges he faced were tremendous but Marcus Aurelius prevailed against overwhelming odds. With what had gone on during his 19 year reign I would suggest that the Empire could have even began a decline if it were not for Marcus Aurelius's leadership. This is my point of view and not intended to cause a stir, if so I apologize.

  19. Roman First Person Slasher

    in Circensis

    Posted

    I think such a game could be done. The formation factor would certainly need to be addressed as it isn't much of a Roman army FPS if you can't play the part accurately. What about automating the battle up to the point where your commander orders the troops to melee? Then you can hack away at NPCs all you want until the melee is finished.

  22. Rome total war & barbarian invasion

    in Circensis

    Posted

    It is best to avoid exhausting your troops. Some factions work better with certain types of units. Use units that work, infantry cohorts for the Romans, cavalry for the Huns, etc. The Romans can use cavalry but I find the Huns are better at using cavalry. The Romans however make for very strong infantry so if you use them in good numbers then you should be able to defeat enemies on the battle map without too much fuss.

×
×
  • Create New...