As an addendum to my last post, Nerva gets a pretty favourable treatment in the sources, but to some extent this is influenced by his successors rather than reality. As the adoptive father of Trajan and by extension the founder of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty - and by a further extension the Severan dynasty, which claimed to be a part of the former dynasty - a lot of emperors over a very long period of time (97-235) had a vested interest in Nerva's reputation. Naturally, Trajan deified the man who was the author of his imperium and for a very short time his adoptive father, and subsequent emperors emphasized a sacred lineage going back to Nerva. By the time the Severan dynasty ended, the reputation of Nerva as a great emperor was very secure and is reflected in the coinage of the emperor Decius and in the emperor Julian's satire The Caesars. Moreover, as the founder of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, a dynasty long associated with peace and prosperity, Nerva has traditionally been regarded by moderns as the first of the 'Five Good Emperors'.
But if we look at Nerva's actual reign he ruled for less than two years, and when the Praetorians rioted he apparently lost control of his bowels, if Cassius Dio is to be believed. The general in the east, Nigrinus, was suspected of planning a usurpation, and Nerva ultimately saved himself from these twin threats by adopting Trajan before dying soon afterwards. One can praise Nerva as someone who did not execute senators and who was ultimately responsible for giving the empire Trajan, but I can't say I'm really that impressed by him. I'm more interested in how he was turned into one of the greatest emperors because of a future legacy that went beyond his actions.
We see a similar example with Claudius Gothicus (268-270). In 310 Constantine claimed him as an ancestor to give himself a dynastic leg-up against his Tetrarchic rivals, and as a result Claudius has been repeatedly regarded as one of Rome's greatest emperors. After all, he was the ancestor (not actually) of the founder of Christendom. In Claudius' defence, Constantine must have picked him for a reason, and he did defeat the Goths in the Battle of Naissus. However, because of Constantine's claims, ancient accounts of Claudius' reign are basically panegyric. David Potter in The Empire at Bay gives a more level-headed assessment of Claudius Gothicus, noting that, when you dig a bit deeper, his reign was not without its follies.
But if we look at Nerva's actual reign he ruled for less than two years, and when the Praetorians rioted he apparently lost control of his bowels, if Cassius Dio is to be believed. The general in the east, Nigrinus, was suspected of planning a usurpation, and Nerva ultimately saved himself from these twin threats by adopting Trajan before dying soon afterwards. One can praise Nerva as someone who did not execute senators and who was ultimately responsible for giving the empire Trajan, but I can't say I'm really that impressed by him. I'm more interested in how he was turned into one of the greatest emperors because of a future legacy that went beyond his actions.
We see a similar example with Claudius Gothicus (268-270). In 310 Constantine claimed him as an ancestor to give himself a dynastic leg-up against his Tetrarchic rivals, and as a result Claudius has been repeatedly regarded as one of Rome's greatest emperors. After all, he was the ancestor (not actually) of the founder of Christendom. In Claudius' defence, Constantine must have picked him for a reason, and he did defeat the Goths in the Battle of Naissus. However, because of Constantine's claims, ancient accounts of Claudius' reign are basically panegyric. David Potter in The Empire at Bay gives a more level-headed assessment of Claudius Gothicus, noting that, when you dig a bit deeper, his reign was not without its follies.
Last edited: