Best Roman Emperor

[Princeps]

I've always felt a bit of a bias towards Hadrian (I live 20km from Hadrians wall, in Northern England).

 

Despite my (mispelled) username, I would go for either Augustus, Dioclettian or Constantine.

 

Diocletian had great foresight. He disbanded the Praetorian guard, and instituted the Tetrarchy, both inspired moves on his part.

 

Constantine was the first truly Christian Emperor. I am not Christian myself, but I am impressed at how he used Christianity as a very effective tool. That battle in particular (the one where the bridge was burned, I think it was against Maxentius) where he claimed to have had a vision from God was a master stroke. H ehad arguably the greatest influence of all of the Emperors on Western Eueopean culture, and for those reasons he is greatest in my eyes.

 

The name Augustus speaks for itself, I won't bore you with why I think he was so great.

 

If Caesar had ever been Emperoe, he would be up there too.

 

I'll go for Constantine, for the reasons stated earlier in this post.

[PerfectimusPrime]

I think that Trajan was the best emperor.

 

And I think that Constantine was a great, but catasthrophical emperor; he misused his power and tried to make him self a semi-divine.

 

With diocletian, he misreformed the army too, starting the rapid deromanization of it.

 

The tetrachy was a disaster, I think. The raising of a gigantic 600.000 army without taking enough centurions, alone made the army less invincible. The supporting of a four great courts was just crippiling to the tax payers.

[Virgil61]

I am stunned that not many have said Augustus, he is by far the best. give any arguments how he was not the best. I can find none.

 

I think a couple of thing mar his rise and reign. He was rather cold-blooded and manipulative, especially when he was younger; for example having no hesitation (along with Antony and Lepidus) proscribing death for many Romans so that he could deliver their land to Antony's legions. I also think he had no intention of dismantling the Republic or its institutions, but his political manipulations led to a centralization of power that made any reversion to the Republic impossible after his death. He made a grevious error in not giving a vision for a post-Augustan Republican Rome, something I think he would have wanted. A great man none the less, but he loses points for these things.

[Valentinian]

I am stunned that not many have said Augustus, he is by far the best. give any arguments how he was not the best. I can find none.

 

I think a couple of thing mar his rise and reign. He was rather cold-blooded and manipulative, especially when he was younger; for example having no hesitation (along with Antony and Lepidus) proscribing death for many Romans so that he could deliver their land to Antony's legions. I also think he had no intention of dismantling the Republic or its institutions, but his political manipulations led to a centralization of power that made any reversion to the Republic impossible after his death. He made a grevious error in not giving a vision for a post-Augustan Republican Rome, something I think he would have wanted. A great man none the less, but he loses points for these things.

I can see where your're coming from

[Princeps]

With diocletian, he misreformed the army too, starting the rapid deromanization of it.

 

The tetrachy was a disaster, I think. The raising of a gigantic 600.000 army without taking enough centurions, alone made the army less invincible. The supporting of a four great courts was just crippiling to the tax payers.

 

I see your point, maybe the Tetrarchy wasn't the best idea (But you can't argue with the way Diocletian became Emperor!)