Appraising the Roman Emperors
Who was the greatest Roman emperor? The answer depends on how you define the word “great”. When assessing historical figures, for me it comes down to a question of influence, and “greatness” implies that this influence was largely positive. Significant influence alone does not necessarily make one great. To use a modern counterexample from the same region: Benito Mussolini may have had more impact on the history of modern Italy than any other leader. But his fascist regime’s legacy of death, destruction, disastrous war and ensuing civil war means he is rarely considered great outside the fevered swamps of the Italian far right.
The class basis of ancient Rome
We should make clear at the outset the material basis of Roman civilization. As a republic and then an empire, ancient Rome was built on slavery as its mode of production. It was a class society characterized by sharp social stratification and hierarchy. The Latin term for a slave in ancient Rome was instrumentum vocale, or tool with a voice. Slaves had no rights. Women and children were little better than slaves, all being considered the property of the male head of the household.
Alan Woods, in his introduction to historical materialism, accurately describes slavery as an “abhorrent and inhuman institution”. Yet he also notes that the morality and culture of each society throughout history corresponds to a given level of development—and in any class society, to the interests of a particular class.
Our attitude towards a particular type of society and its culture cannot be determined by moralistic considerations. What determines whether a given socio-economic formation is historically progressive or not is first and foremost its ability to develop the productive forces – the real material basis upon which all human culture arises and develops.
Hegel, that wonderfully profound thinker, writes: "It was not so much from slavery as through slavery that humanity was emancipated." (Lectures on the Philosophy of History, p. 407). Despite its monstrously oppressive character, slavery marked a step forward inasmuch as it permitted a further development of the productive power of society. We owe all the wonderful achievements of modern science to Greece and Rome – that is, to say, ultimately, to the labour of the slaves.
The Romans utilised brute force to subjugate other peoples, sold entire cities into slavery, slaughtered thousands of prisoners of war for amusement in the public circus, and introduced such refined methods of execution as crucifixion. Yes, all that is perfectly true. To us it seems a monstrous aberration. And yet, when we come to consider where all our modern civilization, our culture, our literature, our architecture, our medicine, our science, our philosophy, even in many cases our language, comes from, the answer is – from Greece and Rome.
All Roman emperors defended the same social system, which was based on slavery. Yet few would deny the cultural achievements of Rome that ultimately shaped Western culture.
Caesar and Caesarism
Gaius Julius Caesar might well be the most influential leader of ancient Rome. Strictly speaking, however, he was not an emperor. Rather, he was a dictator, and the old forms of the republic were briefly restored following his assassination. But the office of emperor is unimaginable without him. The name Caesar become an honorific, a title assumed by all Roman emperors from Augustus onward.
Caesar’s rise to power followed a heightened period of class struggle in the Roman Republic, which Woods has also written extensively on. What do we mean when we talk of “Caesarism”? In essence, Caesarism means rule by the sword. It is the ancient precursor to its modern equivalent, which is often called Bonapartism. According to the Marxist view, the state is an instrument of class rule, which can be reduced in the last analysis to armed bodies of men in defence of property relations. The state acts in the interests of the ruling class. But in certain circumstances, where the ruling and oppressed classes have exhausted themselves in struggle against each other, the state can rise above society and appear to balance between the classes—though it still fundamentally defends the interests of the ruling class.
This was the role played by Julius Caesar when he established himself as dictator. As a Roman general, he represented the armed bodies of men who defended Rome’s existing social order and property relations. Woods again:
In theory, the Roman Republic in historical times was “democratic”, in the sense that the citizens were the electorate and ultimate power resided in the popular Assembly, just as today everything is decided by free elections. In reality, however, the Republic was ruled by an oligarchy of wealthy aristocratic families that exercised a stranglehold over political power. The result of this contradiction was a lengthy period of class struggle that culminated in civil war, at the end of which the army had elevated itself above society and became the master of its destiny.
Caesar struck blows at the Roman aristocrats to draw upon the support of the masses, cementing his own power. He based his rule on the army. Yet he still defended the interests of the slaveowning class. In this way, his rule set the template for every Roman emperor, whose power was ultimately based on the support of the military—which, following its establishment by Augustus, also included the emperor’s elite protection force known as the Praetorian Guard.
A license for tyranny
Though the Roman emperors defended slavery, their rule by force meant that they could and often did abuse their powers even against the slaveowning class. The most infamous emperors are notorious for their megalomania, gluttony and arbitrary cruelty. “Absolute power corrupts,” it is often said, “and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The emperors of Rome were likely a prime influence on whoever coined this expression. Holding absolute power over their subjects, they had free reign to indulge themselves in every manner of torture, sexual perversion, and humiliation of others that often extended to the ruling class itself. But it was when emperors crossed those with real wealth, power, and influence that they prepared their own demise.
The most infamous Roman emperors tended to reap what they sowed in that regard. Caligula, Nero, Commodus, Caracalla all met violent deaths. In Nero’s case, he fled Rome after the senator Vindex rebelled and committed suicide, though he lacked the nerve to do it himself and forced his private secretary Epaphroditus to carry out the task. All of these men alienated powerful sections of Roman society through their sadism, extravagant spending, savage uncontrolled violence, megalomaniacal behaviour, personal eccentricities, and inept rule that could ultimately threaten the foundations of Roman society itself.
Caligula’s perversions and tyrannical rule are so infamous he was the subject of an eponymous 1979 film starring Malcolm McDowell that has garnered its own notoriety. Nero is said (anachronistically) to have “fiddled while Rome burned”, allowing two-thirds of the city to be destroyed so he could build an obscenely decadent new palace; then using Christians as scapegoats and subjecting them to the most hideous public tortures and executions. Commodus created a personality cult arguably unrivalled in history, renaming the city of Rome Colonia Lucia Annia Commodiana, the legions Commodianae, the 12 months of the year each renamed for his different titles, and the Roman people themselves Commodianus. Caracalla became known for his cruelty and frequent massacres.
The Roman ruling class was wiling to tolerate such behaviour so long as the emperors guaranteed their own wealth, property, and privileges—only up to a point. When an emperor began to directly threaten the interests of the ruling class, however, assassination often followed.
Who were Rome’s most effective rulers?
While the decadence of the worst emperors has always provided salacious reading material through the ages and shaped public perception of the office, the Roman Empire also had its share of effective and relatively benevolent rulers. Some of the most well-known are those Niccolò Machiavelli described as the “Five Good Emperors”—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. These men presided during the era from 27 BCE to 180 CE known as the Pax Romana, a period of relative peace and prosperity throughout the empire.
The most praised emperors tend to be those who managed to develop the productive forces; to enrich the empire or secure its public finances; to improve infrastructure and oversee the creation of architectural marvels; to maintain relative peace or, alternatively, to expand the empire through military conquest. Tiberius, for example, widened the boundaries of the empire into parts of what are now Croatia and Germany. Vespasian brought much-needed stability at the end of the tumultuous year 69 CE (known as the “Year of the Four Emperors”), helping reform the financial system and ordering new construction projects including the building of the Colosseum. Hadrian secured the empire’s borders with impressive fortifications, most famously Hadrian’s Wall in Britain.
Noteworthy later emperors included Diocletian, who helped bring an end to the prolonged period of civil war, barbarian invasions, plague, rebellions, political instability, and economic collapse referred to as the Crisis of the Third Century. Diocletian determined much of Europe’s subsequent history through his division of the empire between East and West.
Perhaps the most famous latter-day emperor was Constantine I, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. Constantine, who became sole ruler of both the Eastern and Western empires during his reign, left a massive impact through his Christianization of the empire—which, Catherine Nixey writes in her book The Darkening Age, was accompanied by the physical destruction of much classical culture (temples, sculptures, etc.) and the brutal suppression of the old religions now known as “paganism”. In any case, Constantine may be more responsible than anyone for Christianity becoming the dominant religion in Europe, which certainly makes him a figure of immense historical influence.
The philosopher
If the question comes down to who my personal favourite Roman emperor is, the answer is Marcus Aurelius, hands down.
The last of the “Five Good Emperors”, Marcus oversaw major military victories against the Parthian Empire and various Germanic tribes. His victory column still stands in Rome today. He devalued the Roman currency. Though persecution of Christians increased during his reign, early Christians never considered Marcus a persecutor. Contemporary Christian author Tertullian even called described the emperor as a “protector of Christians”. But the chief claim to fame for Marcus today is his talent as a philosopher.
To this day, his Meditations are still widely read. Written as a private journal by Marcus, the Meditations represent one of the greatest works of Stoic philosophy and a crystallization of its broad outlook. “If thou art pained by any external thing, it is not this that disturbs thee, but thy own judgment about it,” Marcus writes in a representative sample. “And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now.”
Over the years, I’ve often turned to the Meditations for support during tough times, as have many others. Marcus’s writing style is direct, effective, and can inspire one to live life to the fullest. “Do not act as if thou wert going to live ten thousand years,” he writes. “Death hangs over thee. While thou livest, while it is in thy power, be good.” Detractors might dismiss the Meditations as banal, self-contradictory, a mere ancient precursor to modern self-help books. But its enduring influence shows how valuable Marcus’s writings are, continuing to find an audience with every generation. Along with Virgil’s Aeneid and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the Meditations represent one of the most widely read books today from ancient Rome.
While Marcus’s contributions to philosophy and culture mark him out as the greatest Roman emperor from a subjective point of view, in terms of his impact on my life, I can’t say that he was the greatest on an objective basis. At the start of this essay I described greatness in terms of a historical figure’s overall positive influence on history. I also referred to the Marxist view of history, which defines progress in terms of developing the productive forces. With all that in mind, I think there can be only one contender for the greatest emperor of Rome: Caesar Augustus.
The founder
The adopted son of Julius Caesar, Augustus—also known as Octavian—was the first real Roman emperor. As such, he defined the nature of the office and its powers, which included the establishment of the Praetorian Guard. More than anyone else, he can be seen as the founder of the Roman Empire.
It was Augustus who brought an end to the period of civil war that followed Caesar’s assassination and inaugurated the Pax Romana. This period of relative peace and stability allowed for economic growth and flourishing of the arts and culture. Personally, August was an intelligent and decisive leader. He secured the empire’s finances, allowing for the maintenance of roads throughout Italy. Even if Augustus never produced a work as renowned as Meditations, he was still a man of culture who composed numerous poems and written works during his lifetime.
Augustus’s chief claim to being the greatest emperor lies in his own longevity and establishment of a system that endured in one form or another for 1,500 years—through the collapse of the Western Roman Empire to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE, which marked the final end of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. It was this system that spread through Europe and ultimately defined Western culture. It was Rome that first preserved and spread the art, culture, philosophy, and mythology of ancient Greece. The Latin language became the lingua franca of Europe well into the 18th century. Roman roads remained the chief method of transportation across Europe well into the modern era. The title that Augustus institutionalized, Caesar, was adopted in modified form by rulers in Russia (czar) and Germany (Kaiser).
That’s quite a legacy by any measure. Augustus alone, of course, was not responsible for all those achievements. But more than any other figure, as the founder of the Roman Empire he laid the foundations. That accomplishment alone in my view makes him Rome’s greatest emperor.