â„–2562194[Quote]
Julius Caesar was better but he wasn't technically an emperor just a dictator
â„–2562225[Quote]
I think plenty of people would argue Aurelian was the greatest. I'm obviously biased but I quite like Constantine.
â„–2562232[Quote]
>>2562225Aurelian died and everything he did fell apart overnight. Julius Caesar and Augustus made an empire that lasted for almost 1,500 if you count the Byzantine period
â„–2562236[Quote]
>>2562225Aurelian never had time to prove himself as anything but an excellent general. The problem with ranking him so highly is that he was barely ever in Rome and never actually ran the day-to-day facilities of the Empire. I'm sure he could've been a capable administrator, he was well educated enough, but we really just don't have enough to tell.
â„–2562260[Quote]
Augustus is undoubtedly the greatest, but there is a contender many overlook. Antoninus Pius ruled for 20+ years and kept the empire so peaceful that he barely even left the province of Italia. Sure, you could make the argument that Hadrian had left him a stable enough empire, which is certainly a factor, but there were constantly barbarian threats on all sides of the borders and he solved ALL of them diplomatically without even being present and without a single death. There is a lot of glory to be found in conquest, but oftentimes it is far more impressive to keep things prosperous and peaceful
â„–2562271[Quote]
>>2562260Sounds like a swell guy