"Who were the best and worst Roman emperors in history?" Topic

"Rome has a long and fascinating history. The Roman Empire would more accurately be described as the Principate (from 27 BCE to 284 CE) and the Dominate (from Diocletian's Tetrarchy). There were 71 emperors and co-regents from Augustus to Theodosius, who definitively split the empire in eastern and western halves in 395. Here is a list of the main emperors rated in categories from best to worst in terms of policy, diplomatic, administrative and military skills, ability to keep peace, achievements and long-term impact. The order within each category is purely chronological…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

"From A.D. 14 to A.D. 395, 43 of the 69 Roman rulers (62%) died violently, meaning they were killed in battle or at the hands of assassins."

Can't really argue with any of the list, although I would drop Augustus from the best to the very good group

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Antoninus Pius.
He reigned 23 years and nothing of note happened.

Vespasian was an excellent emperor, as was Marcus Aurelius. Unfortunately, they were not the norm. Constantine is a favorite-especially how he handled the Christian bishops problem at the Council of Nicaea.

When the author puts Constantine as The Worst, you know the worth of article.

When the author puts Constantine as The Worst, you know the worth of article.

Agreed! Constantine's genius layed the foundation for the survival of the Eastern Empire for another 1000+ years.

One might argue that Marcus Aurelius was one of the worst because he ended the practice of adoption and so laid the foundation for the 3rd century chaos.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand