http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#31c082ac-b7d2-4cc9-a47d-a5a985a7a1b3 That's a very good point. I was assuming the best leader "for Rome" -- from the point of view of the majority of residents of the Roman Empire, of Roman citizens, or at least from the piont of view of the abstract entitry called "The Senate and People of Rome." There is an important sense in which one could argue that _Rome_ was far from the best thing for the Classical world she engulfed and assimilated under the banner of a World State. And then there is a sense in which one could argue that some sort of Universal State was inevitable in that phase of Classical civilization, and that Rome did at least as well as any of her rivals might at passing the legacy of that civilization on to its successor. Could another kind of Universal State delayed the fall, or made it a softer transition to the next civilization? Could Rome herself have done it much better? That question, I think, is at the heart of the Classical tragedy, and its answer is closely bound up with the Classical institution of slavery, its shorter-term _liberating_ effect on the upper and middle classes, and its longer-term shackling of real economic and technological possibilities. - Jordan Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:37:15 GMT http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#31c082ac-b7d2-4cc9-a47d-a5a985a7a1b3 Jordan 2006-06-22T21:37:15Z http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#2567534c-7e0e-4931-94b4-04659e811632 The point-of-view is what makes this question interesting to me. Different people have different criteria. Some stress the military role, some the economic and some look at it from the viewpoint of other nations and peoples. Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:47:27 GMT http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#2567534c-7e0e-4931-94b4-04659e811632 Richard 2006-06-22T18:47:27Z http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#8160fec3-13e4-4a16-b37e-45bc0ba51403 The question is dependent on how one defines "Rome." The Britons and Jews would certainly have some widely different ideas of what made a "good" leader for Rome. Hadrian and his legions ran amok all over Britain and Syria-Palaestina, for example. Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:15:02 GMT http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#8160fec3-13e4-4a16-b37e-45bc0ba51403 Ms. Em 2006-06-22T17:15:02Z http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#a7d2cc46-c692-4391-ae52-3b9b058bd69f My favorites would have to be the "Five Good Emperors" Nerva, Trajan, Hardian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Nerva quieted a situation that could have easily started the Time of Troubles over a century early; Trajan got Rome back onto the offensive, expanding the Empire for the very last time; Hadrian secured those of Trajan's gains which were readily securable; Antonius Pius governed so well that nothing bad could be found to say about him, in a culture that produced a lot of backbiting; and Marcus Aurelius held the Empire together with dignity, grace, humanity and tolerance in a crisis that included (simultaneously) plague and a major barbarian invasion. Marcus Aurelius made ONE big mistake, however -- trusting his son Commodus -- and that was the seed of the Time of Troubles of the 3rd century CE. - Jordan Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:37:22 GMT http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#a7d2cc46-c692-4391-ae52-3b9b058bd69f Jordan 2006-06-22T16:37:22Z http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#9ce6b121-658a-476e-b345-fb7a895db84a I would like to have a discussion on who was the best leader of Rome (notice I don't use the word "emperor") and why. Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:36:21 GMT http://greecerome.tribe.net/thread/4bf38918-c065-499f-abb5-7b5785aa4b2d#9ce6b121-658a-476e-b345-fb7a895db84a Richard 2006-06-20T18:36:21Z