Who was a better Emperor: Nero or Justinian

Better Roman Emperor?

  • Nero

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • Justinian

    Votes: 17 81.0%

  • Total voters
    21

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,674
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
#11
I also voted Nero because of Ustinov.

I mean, wtf.
It is really illogical to consider that a historical character was better because of the actor who portrayed him in a fictional movie, where neither the script nor the performance need have any resemblance to reality.
 
Sep 2017
644
United States
#12
I noticed 4 votes for Nero. Anyone care to share why? I haven't heard of anything positive he's done, though I have heard his terribleness is overblown significantly.
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,674
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
#15
Because it is absurd to compare Nero and Justinian.

I have one similar:

Who was a better world leader?

-F.D. Roosevelt
-Enver Hoxha
That is not a perfect analogy to the original question, since Roosevelt and Hoxha didn't rule the same state.

It would be a better analogy to the original question to ask which ruler achieved more during their reign, Augustus or Diadumenian, or ask if FDR or William Henry Harrison was a more important president, or ask which English ruler was more tyrannical William the Conqueror or Edward V, or ask who was more successful in war, Basil II or Constantine XI.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,682
Slovenia
#16
That is not a perfect analogy to the original question, since Roosevelt and Hoxha didn't rule the same state.

It would be a better analogy to the original question to ask which ruler achieved more during their reign, Augustus or Diadumenian, or ask if FDR or William Henry Harrison was a more important president, or ask which English ruler was more tyrannical William the Conqueror or Edward V, or ask who was more successful in war, Basil II or Constantine XI.
Basil II or Nikephoros I?
Harrison who?
We Yugoslavians were having Hoxha in jokes of a completely retarded tyrants. He was in a Kim dynasty league and that was not a small achievement.
Also no idea about Edward V and Diawhat.
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,674
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
#17
Basil II or Nikephoros I?
Harrison who?
We Yugoslavians were having Hoxha in jokes of a completely retarded tyrants. He was in a Kim dynasty league and that was not a small achievement.
Also no idea about Edward V and Diawhat.
I guess comparing Basil II with Nikephoros I would be similar to comparing him or Justinian I to Constantine XI.

As we all know FDR was US president the longest and got a lot done in his years in office. William Henry Harrison was elected president n 1840 but died about a month into his term in 1841, making vice president John Tyler the first vice president to become president, and making Harrison the president who accomplished the least while in office.

King William the Conqueror (reigned 1066-1887) is often considered to be a very tyrannical king of England. Edward V reigned for a few months in 1483 before being deposed and soon disappearing from the record, presumed murdered. Being 12 years old, there was a regency during his short reign. Thus Edward V probably had the least time, political authority, or inclination to be tyrannical of any English monarch.

Augustus, the first Roman Emperor reigned c. 27 BC to AD 14), about 41 years, and accomplished a lot, like founding the Roman Empire. Diadumenian, full name Marcus Ophellius Antonius Diadumenianus Augustus, ws the son of emperor Macrinus who reigned in 217-218. He was appointed Caesar in 217 and Augustus (emperor) in 218 age 9. Obviously Diadumenian didn't have time or power to accomplish much. Diadumenian might possibly have met the future emperor Maximinus, who might have been twice as tall as him.
 
Last edited:

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,682
Slovenia
#18
Thanks. Of course I know quite some about Augustus, FDR and William the Bastard but others are minor figures so I missed them.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,905
Portugal
#19
I noticed 4 votes for Nero. Anyone care to share why? I haven't heard of anything positive he's done, though I have heard his terribleness is overblown significantly.
As stated before Peter Ustinov may have some influence in it.

On a more serious tone, two comments:

First: internet pools are an awful method of historical research. And since they aren’t serious methods of historical research they can’t be taken seriously.

Second: There were Roman emperors with good historiography and Roman emperors with bad historiography. I am not an expert in Roman history (well, I am not an expert in anything) but Nero falls in the last cases, so let us reconsidered it, there is also some historiography in that line:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/Nero Reconsidered_0.pdf
 
Likes: macon