- Oct 2018
- 1,853
- Sydney
I'm not sure how I would personally define 'greatest', but Augustus and Constantine are two of the most impactful rulers in history.
"I know the answer isn't X... but X". Like you say, Marcus Aurelius isn't a serious choice, just like a lot of the names being proffered here. Ok, he's a favourite of yours, but how on earth he could be the greatest ruler of antiquity I have no idea; he wasn't even the greatest of the Good Emperors. His absurd insistence on setting up a family dynasty, which he did when his kids were still toddlers and infants (but didn't dare do until his predecessor had passed away) shows he was a long way from putting his own people first; his family was far more important to him, which is a pretty damning criticism of a guy who was supposed to be a stoic philosopher.Marcus Aurelius gets my vote. I know that "greatest ruler in Antiquity" is a stretch here; however, as a recreational fan of history, I always enjoy reading history by trying to place myself in the times an places I'm reading about. Therefore, I place a high value upon benevolence. From everything I've read, Marcus Aurelius seemed to have genuinely cared for the people as well as the health and future of the nation, poor choice in successor notwithstanding.
Julian gets honorable mention. He seems to have been a genuinely intelligent person which I also find respectable, especially among the ruthless, degenerate and avaricious ruling class. I respect what I understand of his regard to old Roman values and his lack of an overly heavy handed approach in attempting to restore some of that old Roman culture.
So he was lucky enough to be the first of the good emperors to have a family of natural children to be his heirs. What would have happened to his surviving sons if they weren't emperors but had a claim to the throne to rival whoever did become emperor?"I know the answer isn't X... but X". Like you say, Marcus Aurelius isn't a serious choice, just like a lot of the names being proffered here. Ok, he's a favourite of yours, but how on earth he could be the greatest ruler of antiquity I have no idea; he wasn't even the greatest of the Good Emperors. His absurd insistence on setting up a family dynasty, which he did when his kids were still toddlers and infants (but didn't dare do until his predecessor had passed away) shows he was a long way from putting his own people first; his family was far more important to him, which is a pretty damning criticism of a guy who was supposed to be a stoic philosopher.
That's a fair point. The eldest biological sons who do not succeed to the purple tend to eventually be killed or forcibly take the purple for themselves.So he was lucky enough to be the first of the good emperors to have a family of natural children to be his heirs. What would have happened to his surviving sons if they weren't emperors but had a claim to the throne to rival whoever did become emperor?
We're talking about whether he was the greatest ruler in antiquity here. Someone who prioritises his family over the Empire can't possibly qualify. I can get into why your statement is misleading and not entirely accurate, but it isn't necessary. Augustus, to take one example, is a guy who didn't go out looking for the closest bloodlink to be his heir; he chose the best person from his broader family, because he wanted stability, and to ensure he left his legacy in good hands; and hey look, it didn't lead to (all) Augustus other relatives being purged by Tiberius to ensure his succession, and if it had Augustus was obviously ok with taking that risk for the greater good. Aurelius didn't care about that at all. He had other flaws, but that alone makes his inclusion in this thread not serious.So he was lucky enough to be the first of the good emperors to have a family of natural children to be his heirs. What would have happened to his surviving sons if they weren't emperors but had a claim to the throne to rival whoever did become emperor?
The problem with the Postumus example is the very fact that he was banished. This suggests that he was punished for a crime undisclosed in our sources. So this isn't simply a case where a son was deemed unsuitable and passed over for the throne. Something more than this happened. Your analysis of the Julio-Claudian period also overlooks the apparent interest that the Julio-Claudians had with dual successors (Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Agrippa Postumus and Tiberius, Germanicus and Drusus Castor, Caligula and Tiberius Gemellus, Britannicus and Nero), something that did not survive the Julio-Claudian period because it lent itself to intra-dynastic murder, but seems to me to be evidence that the Julio-Claudians were still working out what exactly the emperorship was and how the succession was going to work.To harp again about Augustus as a point of comparison. Augustus had a grandson still; he banished the guy to live elsewhere, because he wasn't a suitable successor, even though by blood he was ahead of his stepson Tiberius. He also forced Tiberius to adopt a suitable successor as a condition of his adoption (who was not his son either), and Tiberius apparent obsession with making his son Emperor (and probably poisoning Germanicus) is one of the big marks against Tiberius as an emperor; because it was the wrong policy! To say "well, it's understandable" isn't an argument in a thread about superior leadership. It's understandable why many Dark Ages rulers sucked, but we don't then compare them favourably to the leaders who transcended their time to provide a better quality of leadership. In contrast, Aurelius selected his kids as infants and toddlers to rule, and as they died he kept appointing more. He also waited for his predecessor to die before he dared do it, probably because it went entirely against the principle of stable succession that they'd all been following; and no, the good emperors hadn't had sons either, but it had been very possible some of them could have had sons at the time they adopted and began raising their handpicked heirs, they couldn't read the future and be sure what would happen. Clearly they weren't too fussed about natural successors.
What's your beef with Gibbon? He furthered the study, however imperfectly. Scaffolding my zealous friend, scaffolding.Julian the Apostate being intelligent? Very unlikely unless one learns his history from some Edward Gibberish works who polished the actions of Julian the Apostate who actually failed not just as religious reformer, but also culturally and militarily.
Julian combined a branch of polytheism with variety of different Pagan traditions that he put himself outside the mainstream of contemporary belief in such a way that his effort of reopening temples and appointing cult leaders across his empire was a failure when he found out that his reception by pagans was “as best lukewarm” as the Roman historian, David Potter, states in “Rome in the Ancient World” in page 288. -
Yet, according to Ammianus, he was very well received at Antioch...He even alienated powerful groups within the bureaucracy in Antioch, and just after the death of Constantius II he ordered trials and execution of some leading officials despite many (including Ammianus) thought were treated unjustly.
Although he did not succeed in removing Christianity, he did act intelligently:Taking into consideration that Julian and the pagans were majority in his reign while the Christians were still a minority, then his ineptitude as a religious reformer is quite embarrassing.
This demonstrates his lack of wisdom how?As a politician he was also not quite wise. He only became sole emperor because Constantius II died unexpected,
In June 362 he promulgated an edict that banned Christians from teaching grammar, rhetoric, and, according John Chrysostom, medicine as well.90 In a subsequent rescript to this law, Julian defines proper paideia (παιδείαν ὀρθὴν) as having “a healthy condition (διάθεσιν ὑγιῆ) of a mind that possesses understanding and true doctrines about good and evil.”91 The Christians, though they ought to be forcibly “cured like those who are insane (ὥσπερ τοὺς φρενιτίζοντας … ἰᾶσθαι),” he insists must be healed “of such a disease as this” (τῆς τοιαύτης νόσου) by education alone.92 The challenge herein, though, was a symptom of that disease, that the Christians denied that the gods were the source of that very paideia they appropriated for themselves.He is, as far as I know, the only Roman emperor who ordered a ban on learning towards the Christians. Which stupid emperor apart from Julian the Apostate does such thing?
Ok, I made a grandiose statement about Julian while thinking about what I perceive as virtues in Aurelius; however, you have made an absurd and somewhat offensive statement, which is quite paradoxical considering your diatribe about the stupidly of Julian.He also showed signs of being mentally ill or perhaps just a little bit retarded.