Use the questions below to guide your reflection. Be as specific as you can as you make your judgment. This will serve as the second half of your assessment.
- What type of leadership style and skills did each emperor have?
- In your opinion, who was the best emperor? The worst? Why?
- What was each emperor’s claim to fame? Downfall?
52 comments:
Different kinds of emperors had different kinds of leadership skills. For example, the leaders considered less capable, like Nero and Tiberius, were often selfish in their rule and depended on other people to fix their problems. The more capable leaders, such as Augustus and Constantine the Great, were considered generous and brave.
In my opinion, Constantine the Great was the best emperor. Like Augustus, he left Rome better than he found it by winning his battles and being modest with his power. Unlike Nero or Claudius, he didn't kill any of his wives or family members. I believe the worst emperor was Caligula. He was very selfish in his rule and was disliked so much that he was the first Roman emperor to be assassinated.
In my opinion I think that Tiberius was the best ruler of Rome. He was the 2nd emperor. He was one of the greatest generals of Rome conquering Pannonia, Dalmatia, Raetia, and some of Germania. He never desired to be emperor yet succeed. The opposite of Tiberius I'd say would be Nero. This man caused the Great Fire of Rome. This cased much of Rome to be destroyed. The worst leader of Rome would be Caligula. He took advantage of his power and liked the idea of people being killed. Each emperor had their pros and cons. It seems like after each emperor died, one of their relatives took charge.
I believe Constantine was the best ruler. He was the smartest and the most reliable. Constantine never backed down to any of his battle and continued to win almost every single one. Also, the fact that he didn't have the urge for power like many of the others also makes him the better choice.
Tiberius trusted people too easily which got him into many bad situations. Caligula became very sick and possibly came down with a mental illness. Nero eventually became insane and killed himself. This concludes why Constantine was the best ruler.
In my opinion, all of the leaders had similar skills of leadership. I think that most of these emperors were good leaders, very successful, and a lot of people liked them. Even though most were successful leaders, few were not very successful. Marcus Aurelus, Nero, Tiberius, and Caligula did not have such a good rule. They were all very selfish and considered a disgrace. Constantine, Augustus, Claudius, and Vespasian were great rulers because they all were very brave and courageous.
I believe that the best emperor was Constantine. I think that he was the best emperor because he was strong, reliable, brave, and strategic. Also, Constantine didn't go into a battle or even start a conflict if he could not handle it or fix it. I believe that the worst emperor was Nero. I think this because it is believed that he set Rome on fire. Also, many people hated him. I think that he was a terrible ruler.
Robert McCormick
I agree with Sofia in saying different emperors ruled in different styles. Even so, there were emperors who ruled better than others. In my opinion, Constantine was the best Roman emperor. I say this for several reasons. First, Constantine was fearless and courageous (which is what a leader in any circumstance needs to be.) He did not hide behind chairs when his empire was attacked like Claudius had. Instead, he took charge and defended his empire. Second, he was very reliable to his people and earned their trust, unlike Caligula. When Caligula had ruled, the people were frightened for their own lives and they were Roman citizens! A true leader would never make his/her citizens feel this way. Finally, Constantine was the first emperor to allow the Christian religion to be spread and preached. All of the other emperors before him had never allowed this and considered it to be sneaky and sly.
In my opinion, the worst emperor had to be Nero. Besides killing himself, he had killed both his mother and first wife! (Not to mention countless of other people.) He was a true "predator," killing animals and wearing their fur before killing actual people for no reason. Nero was cruel, untrustworthy and sly and because of this, the people of Rome hated him. Overall, that is my analysis of the best and worst emperors of Rome.
I believe that there were many different emperors with different kinds of personalities. A leader will rule how he sees fit. That doesn't mean that they have the best idea. There were many successful emperors of Rome. Others however, not so successful.
In my opinion, the best ruler of Rome was the first person that came into power. That person is Augustus. He was the first emperor of Rome, so that tells me that he earned the position fairly. He created the government of Rome that lasted for centuries past his death. He gave slaves the opportunity to work for the government and have a reasonable job. This accomplishment makes his a strong suited leader in my eyes. He was seen as a hero by his people for what he accomplished for Rome. Augustus once said close to the end of his rule, "I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marbles.' He was the reason why Rome had a future because he put Rome in a very stable condition to easily prosper.
I felt that the worst of the emperors of Rome was Nero. As leader, Nero has done nothing good to help the city of Rome prosper and grow. Instead, he started to shorten the population because of his Christian persecutions. Christians believe in a different god, so they were just about shunned from the rest of the society and Nero had them killed. The only "good" thing (if you will even count it as good) is when Rome burned to the ground, he gave the citizens food and shelter. This sounds like a great deed, but their is a strong rumor that Nero set Rome on fire himself on purpose so people would like him more. Nero only got to be emperor because his mom married Claudius. He eventually killed his mother and his first wife.
Nero started to become mentally insane as his rule went on. He would kill animals and dress in their skin. He would then kill people by biting their genitals off.
In conclusion, Rome Has had its ups with Constantine, Augustus, Claudius, and Vespasian, and their downs with Marcus Aurelius, Nero, Tiberius, and Caligula, but they have worked through mostly all of them and stayed united for many centuries.
In my opinion,one the best Roman Emperors would have to be Vespasian... After Nero's ruling, he reformed the armies, restored order in the government, and began to rebuild Rome from the great fire... He most importantly restored faith in the Empire and he was the first real commoner to ascend to the throne and was drastically different from the Julio-Claudian egomaniacs that had ruled prior to Nero's death. Most people would say that Vespasian simply built the Colosseum, but he prevented the Roman empire from out and out Civil War because he had the respect and support of the Legions and military (as he was the Military Governor of the Palestine region prior to the year of the four emperors). And as for the title as the worst ruler... I'd give that to Caligula. He was not successful in making war with the Germans to the north of the Roman Empire. It seems that Caligula suffered from mental illness and had a violent temper. He was misunderstood. He was corrupted (changed from good into bad) by power. He was dangerous to all those around him, which in the end, all resulted in being killed by his own guards and people.
Every leader had different ways of ruling. Tiberius depended on others to fix his problems while he was ruling. Augustus took charge and ruled the empire on his terms. Marcus Aurelius was hardworking and well-respected. Claudius helped women and slaves with their rights, although he was a little bit of a fool and was speech impaired. Vespasian had a sense of humor and Nero focused on diplomacy, cultural life, and trade.
In my opinion, I think Augustus was the best ruler because he was frugal and helped the people of Rome. Augustus was strict, but he lived a life that was about the same as the common middle-classed Roman, instead of the luxurious life of an emperor. Also, he didn't want it to seem like he thought of himself more highly then of the people.
I think the worst emperor would probably have to be either Tiberius, Nero, or Caligula. Tiberius exiled himself from Rome in the middle of his ruling, while Nero cause the Great Fire of Rome and committed suicide. Caligula beats all of them because he enjoyed war and seeing people killed, but then again, he was mental.
I think each emperor's claim to fame was another emperor, most likely a relative, dying. The down fall of every emperor differs, but it always seems to end badly with the emperor being killed or committing suicide.
Throughout the Roman Empire, there were many different kinds of emperors. Some leaders were more capable and successful, while others were not. The leaders that I thought were good successful leaders were Claudius, Vespion, and Augustus. The other leaders, like Caligula, Nero, Tiberius, and Marcus Aurelius, were not as successful.
In my opinion, I think that Augustus was the best leader. He liked to give his people a good impression and he was also a military leader and a dictator. Also, Augustus was mature from a very young age having to take the throne after his adopted father, Julius Caesar, after he died. In comparison, Claudius was also a good leader. He was successful in invading Britain and he also helped with women's rights.
Also, in my opinion, I think that Caligula was the worst out of all emperors. Caligula was a very cruel and coarse man. Caligula was raised in a military camp by his uncle Tiberius and I think that's why he was very harsh. Caligula was a man who took pleasure in pain, punishment, and held lagish events. Caligula and his family were killed by his empire because of how hardcore he was. All in all, each leader was different and found different ways to rule the empire.
If we look at the facts, some emperors don't even have the skills to lead in the first place. An example of this would be Nero. Nero was born into leadership,but the key of being a good leader is not a genetic trait that is passed down, it is a skill that is acquired through experience and hard work. Since Nero was just born into this and also forced into this (not knowing if he wanted this or not), he was insane and a terrible emperor, and the citizens had to suffer because his savageness. That is why I believe that Nero was the worst emperor that we discussed.
On the other hand I believe that Constantine the Great was the best emperor of Rome. I'm not just saying this because of his military greatness, his smarts and his reliability, but because of his bravery. I think that Constantine was brave because he was the first CHRISTIAN emperor of Rome, and that was a huge risk on account of the Christians being persecuted for many years in Rome. He was also a fantastic leader because he was smart and didn't let the power and pride go to his head. That is why I believe that Constantine is the best Roman emperor.
Going back to leadership skills, some emperors abused the power that they had. A great example of this would be Caligula. He slaughtered people just because he didn't like them and because he had the power to do whatever he wished. According to the notes that we took on leadership, I don't believe that this is the ideal way of leading an empire, especially one such as Rome. Finally this is probably this biggest point for the downfall of some emperors. They had the urge for so much power and kept wanting more, but in reality no man can have the world. So some emperors had the power drive them mad, then you have Nero who took the easy way out by killing himself.
On the other hand you had good strategic leaders such as Augustus. I say this because Augustus was very skill in politics and made Rome a very success empire. This concludes My
essay.
Each leader has different ways of ruling a country in his or her ways of what he/she wants in his/her country. I thought some Roman Emperors were good emperors, some were focused on culture, trade, etc.
I don't see which Emperor was the worst or the best because I see leaders of historic countries as a legend to the history of the current world today and that of people searching for artifacts of countries that existed before today.
I thought each emperors claim to fame was to have another emperor to take control of the Roman Empire. Their downfall the most was death by being murder, assassinated or suicide
I cannot and will not pick and choose who 'ruled best'. All the emperors have their own ways of ruling the empire, as they should. Some were thrust onto the throne and expected to know how to maintain and manage an empire. I'd say for example, Nero, we don't know whether or not he desired to become emperor. His mom married Claudius so that he would be next to rule. Some may say that she did this to give her son happiness etc. Though have we ever read about Nero desiring to be emperor? Maybe his mother actually wanted the power but, could only get it through her son Nero.
I don't believe that it's fair to say that Constantine was the BEST ruler. Why? Constantine had experience. If I was to say, who do I think benefited Rome the best it'd be fair to say Constantine. I'd say Constantine benefited Rome because he had the skills, the resources, etc. Constantine's militaristic past benefited him and Rome in his reign as emperor.
My point is that though Constantine was a very promising leader it isn't completely fair to compare other inexperienced emperors to him because of his advantage on others. I believe, that each and every ruler brought something to Rome that has helped it become what it is.
I also think that Nero's downfall was one of the worst. He was accused of 'Fiddling while Rome burned' though no witnesses confirmed or denied it. Basically, everyone turned on him because of the non-confirmed accusations. The worst way to go out of your reign for me would have to be all your people turning on you in the end. Which, as a result, Nero committed suicide to avoid capture and death by the hands of the people that were supposed to stand along him.
I think Augustus was the best leader because he was humble to everyone in Rome. He was strict but a leader is suppose to be strict or else everything would be out of control. He didn't want people to feel bad about themselves because they weren't as wealthy.
I think Nero was the worst because he committed suicide, it was just like giving up. He had a big responsibility and let a lot of people down.
I also think Caligula was a horrible leader. He wasn't even a leader. He just had a lot of power and he used it in sick ways.
In my opinion i think that Marcus was a really great leader. He was well respected and hard working. Marcus also strive to be a good leader unlike Tiberius. Tiberius was the worst leader because he went to the wrong people for advice. He also didn't have very good judgement. By:Gloria P. Harley
I think Augustus was the best leader. He wasn't like the horrible leader Caligula, who went complete insane. He wasn't demanding and forcing death punishments. He was ok and wanted all of the Romans to think of him as one of them. That's why I think he was the best.
Different emperors are different people. People do things differently, so emperors rule in different ways. One person can study for all of their tests, but fail where another can ace every test without studying. One emperor might be involved with citizens and be a kind ruler. Some of the examples of bad rulers were Nero, Tiberius, Caligulus, and Marcus Aurelius. Some of the better rulers were Constantine and Augustus because they were brave, generous people. Nero and Tiberius were selfish people who were not independent.
Nero was definitely the worst ruler in my opinion. He was a savage. He killed his mom and his wife. He was a brutal murderer. He would wrap himself in animal skin and kill people by biting off their genitals. I think that the best ruler was Augustus especially compared to Nero. He was a generous, coragous, determined man.
The rules of Vespasian, Claudius, Nero, and Tiberius ended because of death. Most of the rulers that we learned about got power from family.
The best emperor in my opinion was Augustus. He was an ordinary, humble, and simple leader. He was also very religious and strict. Augustus restored some parts of the republic. He created a system of government that has been used for many centuries. After he died the empire was still in stabled.
Tiberius did not have good judgment and he trusted the wrong people for advice.Overall he was a weak emperor.
Different emperors have different skills of course. All of them define themselves during their rules. Constantine was good in battles and strategy. Nero was able to kill his own people. Claudius was a simple yet a fine leader. Augustus lead on Pax Romana
I think Augustus was one of the better ruler within the rulers. He had a better image in public and his priorities were in place unlike Nero and some others. He was able to lead Rome into pax romana, and clean Rome and feed them. When he ruled it was peaceful with nothing else happening. The worst emperor would be Nero. He was morally awful, stupid, selfish like most other emperors. His priorities were not in the right place. He was a child , Enough said.
Most of the emperors claim to fame through blood and families.They take the throne by killing the emperor who they relate to. Most of them either fall by dying or poisoning themselves. They can also get assassinated. As for most emperors they die unhappy. Claudius died of poison, Nero committed suicide, and Augustus died of illness.
Like Sofia said I agree that best empire was Augusts. All of the people that he ruled liked him because he did not go crazy with power and treated them all with respect. He also won a lot of battles, that he did not start, and didn’t take advantage of that power. Also he did not kill any of his wives or children, or take pride in executing his people.
Completely unlike Augusts I think that the worst emperor was Claudius because he went crazy with power. Claudius had fun executing his people; also he killed his own wife. He was strongly disliked by his people so much that they assonated him.
Each leader ruled their own way. There was Augustus who was frugal and a strict leader. He cared about the citizens and was a powerful and effective leader. He was also a great military leader. Another leader was Nero, who killed many people and persecuted Christians. He caused problems and wars to happen during his ruling. Caligula was a cruel and unpopular leader. He executed many people and he thought too highly of himself and thought that he is a god. Claudius helped with slaves rights and women rights. Tiberius was forced into leadership and he didn't have the desire to lead.
I think the best leader was Augustus. He was very successful in ruling. He was frugal and wanted to live his life like the Roman citizens. Even though he was strict, he was a religious person and also family oriented. He had a lot of power unlike Caligula who I think is the worst leader. He was not successful in ruling. He killed and murdered many people especially slaves who he sacrificed to the god. He was very cruel and many people did not like him that he and his family was killed.
I think a ruler's claim to fame can be inherited or it can also be how experienced you are as a leader and how good of a person you are. I think a ruler's claim to downfall can just be dying or being killed.
Each emperor had their own type of leadership style. Some emperors like Tiberius were more militaristic. Others were more political. Some like Caligula were selfish and didn't do things for the people. Others like Augustus and Constantine were loved by their people.
I think Augustus was the best emperor. He was generous and he was a good leader. He had the public on his side. I think the worst emperor was Nero. He executed Christians and killed his own family. He was hated so much by his people that he killed himself.
I think most of the emperors only came into power because they were handed it when they were born. Most of their downfalls were them dying. Caligula was the first to be assassinated and Nero killed himself.
Every leader had a different way to leaded the Rome.
I believie the greatest Roman emperor would be Augustus. He was a superb military leader, he expanded the Roman military force during his reign not only the army but the naval might, he created the true Roman forum a symbol of true dominance and law, and above all he put the people before himself.
And the worst leader of Rome would be Caligula.He claimed himself as a god and killed alot of people.He is very cruel and unpopular.He was a bad emperor
I think each emperor ruled in different ways and had different leadership techniques. I think most of the leaders were successful in their own ways, but I would have to say that Constantine was the best of all the rulers. He was most reliable, intelligent, and smart. He won just about every war/battle that he went into. I think Nero was the worst emperor. I think this because he caused The Great Fire of Rome. This destroyed much of Rome. I think he was a horrible leader.
I don't think any one leader was better than the other. I appreciate Augustus' attempt at a simple lifestyle. It shows that he cared about those he ruled. However i also appreciate Constantine for his determination, which is a good characteristic for a leader to have. Overall even the lesser of the leaders such as Claudius added to an image of a perfect leader. Even though his behavior was overboard, its important to be somewhat cruel as a leader at times.
Mark Hoochuk: I don't think any one leader was better than the other. I appreciate Augustus' attempt at a simple lifestyle. It shows that he cared about those he ruled. However i also appreciate Constantine for his determination, which is a good characteristic for a leader to have. Overall even the lesser of the leaders such as Claudius added to an image of a perfect leader. Even though his behavior was overboard, its important to be somewhat cruel as a leader at times.
Victoria Granton......
I believe augutus was the best out of the leaders. Augutus was the first emperor of rome and he was very good at his Ruling. Unlike the other emperors including nero who killed people and started wars at the time that he was ruling. Augustus was very religious and strict and after his death the empire was still stable. Augustus also made a system of goverment that lasted centuries. I think that augutus was a very strong leader and thats why i think he is best.
All of the leaders tried to rule the land by either connecting to the oriole, like conquering land or just being friendly, or by installing fear into then.the best ruler was Augustus because of how he was kind to his citizens and how had then on his side, the worst ruler was Nero because of how he killed many innocent Christian and his own family. I believe that every ruler inherited the throne that is how they got their fame. The downfall of Ewan reign was the horrific ways in which most of the emperors died like how Nero killed himself and how Caligula wad assassinated.
All of the emperors had different styles of leadership, just like every teacher has a different way of teaching. They had different styles but they were all very similar. They differed from great leadership to homicide worthy leadership. All of the emperors had skills involving building and making leadership.
To me the best emperor was Augustus. Simply because he did not do many crazy murderous things. Also that fact that he had great leadership and courage. Also he made Rome a better place. To me the worst emperor was Nero not only because he was a horrible person but because he was also a horrible leader. He killed his mom and his first wife. He also did some HORRIBLE THINGS TO ANIMALS AND HUMANS in the way he would murder them.
Vespasians claim to fame was building toilets. His downfall to me was him spaying on his own invention. Marcus Aurelis' claim to fame was being in charge of Pax Romana. His downfall to me is him being a awful leader how are you going to rule a nation and you have no control over it. Claudias' claim to fame is fixing all of Caligulas' problems. His downfall to me is him being shunned by his own family. Augustus claim to fame is him saving Rome. His downfall would probably be him dying. Neros claim to fame is him trying to redeem himself. His downfall would have to be his death. Tiberius' claim to fame is him being a good leader. His downfall would be him having trust issues. Caligula's claim to fame is all the problems he was making. His downfall was having another emperor come behind you and clean up your mess.
I believe that Augustus was a great leader because he was selfless and humble. He was one of the few leaders of Rome who tried to connect with the people and wanted the citizens to see that he was like them; and not superior to to them.Augustus was also a great Military general; the opposite of Augustus was Caligula.Caligula in my opinion was one of the worst leaders of Rome because he was cruel and sadistic.He loved to watch executions and killed many of people out of malice content.Mostly every emperor's decline was based on greed and getting drunk on power.Each emperor anticipated to be a good leader, but they failed trying to. Also they're family members took over after each emperor died.
In my opinion I think that Tiberius and Nero were the worst emperors. Nero at a young age was a bad person and even had criminal activity. Nero brutally killed people for his own benefit and honor which made the people of Rome overtime plan to kill him. Tiberius, unlike Nero was intelligent and cunning and less brutal than he was. Tiberius was more dependent on other people to do his work for him and trusted the wrong people that put him into very bad situations. He was also severely depressed most of the time which lead to his rumored death. I think the best ruler of Rome was Augustus. Even though he was the first emperor of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty period, he put the Roman Empire to a good start. Augustus was considered a hero to the people of Rome because like Constantine the Great, he was such a generous leader and he used his power and leadership for not only his benefit, but the benefit of the people.
I feel like all of the emperors shared many traits. They all had some type of courageous or brave side to them, like how Augustus was able to just walk into war being confident. I also feel like they all were very precise on what they wanted and why.
I feel as if Augustus was definitely the best ruler and I don't just say this because he was my emperor for the assignment. I feel as if Augustus was the only one who actually did good and did not let down all of his people frequently. He was known as a hero to many and very charismatic. He was very driven and got things done right. This is why I think Augustus was the best/ strongest.
In my opinion Nero was the worst ruler. How can you be a good ruler if you kill people not of your religion and even your own family? Also he was not very wise with all of his decisions as emperor.
In conclusion all of the emperors had their good and bad qualities but Augustus and Nero really stood out to me the most. It seems to me that basically all of the emperors rulings ended from being ill, killed, or just dropping out.
Emperors had implemented their own ways through life experiences, but I believe that Augustus was a great leader because he had set-up an image that really reflected good vibes onto the citizens but fell short when tough times came to Rome. But when Augustus was at his prime he was a good example onto the people and had a great army. Now Caligula on the other hand was one of the worst picks in emperor history. He was a man who lived a horrible and sickening life. He was mentally disturbed and did unspeakable things to people when they were punished. He was trying to seek revenge in a way, but really was hated by his people.
All of the leaders had their own way and techniques when it came to their ruling. For instance Augustus was a very strong leader. He was a very successful military leader, and was also very strict. Altogether I believe that Augustus was the most successful. On the other hand, Caligula was the worst emperor. His idea of ruling was probably the worst. It seemed like his first instinct was to punish and destroy the lives of others.
Each emperors leadership style was different. Some emperors were intelligent and ruled well while others were selfish and terrible leaders.
In my opinion the best emperor was Augustus. He was a hero, determined, and had courage. He was the first Roman emperor, and he started off the empire well. The worst emperor was Caligula. I think he was the worst emperor because he was selfish and only did things that benefit him. He was also very cruel. He would even kill people to get his way to the top. No one liked him.
Each emperor had their own unique claim to fame. Tiberius was talented in the military and won almost every battle he went to. Caligula started two water systems. Nero gave the Romans food and shelter when Rome burned. Augustus was the 1st ruler of the Roman Empire, he was a great leader. And Claudias was an intelligent leader who ruled Rome nicely.
Each emperor also had a downfall. Claudias' downfall was when he killed his wife because she cheated on him. Augustus' downfall was when he died August 19, 14 A.D. Nero's downfall was when he killed his mother and first wife. Tiberius' downfall was when he died of depression. And Caligula's downfall was when he became the first emperor to be assassinated.
Every leader had different leadership skills and very few had the similar leadership skills. For example, some were very selfish and didn't care about the citizens and used their power on themselves, such as Nero. Others were much better at leading and actually had the skill like Augustus.
I believe that Nero was the worst leader, he killed off many Christians, and he couldn't even deal with his own problems himself. He didn't deserve leadership of Rome. He used his power for worst like killing off Christians and killing his Mom and Wife. I think Augustus is the best leader he over came his own battles he had to fight and he led the city of Rome the right way. Compared to Nero, Augustus was like a savior.
Each emperor had a different claim to fame, some had downfall, and some were raised high. For example Nero took a serious downfall practically everyone who knew about him in Rome wanted him dead. Augustus was raised high and mighty they praised Augustus for what he had done for the city of Rome. That is why I believe each emperor had different claims to fame.
Based on the history of Augustus and his rule, I believe Augustus was the greatest emperor of all the rest of the roman emperors, as many people would agree. He was the first emperor of Rome and started a long period of peace and prosperity throughout Rome known as Pax Romana. He was so great, that the people gave him the title "exalted one". Augustus was certainly talented with politics unlike some emperors. He created a stable system of government and solved economy problems. Augustus definitely received the most recognition. He impacted so much on Rome that if he never existed, Rome would've crumbled way before it did in our history. He is an example of a exceptional leader. There were other rulers who were just a disgrace compared to Augustus. Nero was the biggest disgrace of all rulers. He doesn't even deserve to be ranked a plebeian. He was only emperor because he was a part of the family which made him heir. Nero committed many vile and violent crimes such as killing people, especially his own mother and wife. He was portrayed as mental and insane emperor because of his actions. Many people did not even like him. I really think that he benefited the Roman Empire not a single bit. Unfortunately, there are some incapable rulers that are totally worthless, and rarely, a great emperor emerges to fix all the problems.
I totally agree with Raymond. I feel that Augustus was the best emperor. He seemed like he accomplished the most out the rest of the emperors. While he was ruling Rome, he did start the period of Peace that was known as Pax Romana, as we discussed in class. Augustus had the largest impact on Rome. Since I presented Nero, our group researched and learned about how insane he actually was. In conclusion, these are the best and worst emperors of Rome in my opinion.
I agree with Taylor and Catie. I agree that Constantine was the best ruler of Rome. I believe this because in my opinion was the smartest to rule and was a very strong leader. Many other rulers, like Nero, were mean and killed many. Constantine was different and cared about his people.
I believe that Nero was the worst leader of Rome. He killed so many and many people believe he was the cause of the Great fire in Rome. The other rulers did a pretty good job but, these two stood out the most to me.
Each emperor ruled with different leadership skills. Some led in a militaristic way like Tiberius. Others ruled nicely like Claudius and some led bravely like Constantine and Augustus.
In my opinion, I think that Constantine was the best emperor. He ruled strong and smart. He used his strategic skills to with battles and feared nothing. He didn’t have a huge urge for power, which in my opinion, is a sing of a good leader. I would say that the worst leader would probably be Nero. I do not think that he has been much good as an emperor. He killed his own mother and first wife and executed Christians. He was mentally unstable and committed many murders. Many people hated him as a ruler.
I think that Constantine was the best ruler because he was very reliable and he wasn't hungry for power to where he was selfish and would do anything for the power. I think that Nero and Caligula were the worst rulers because they were the complete opposite of Constantine and would do anything to benefit themselves. They did not care for the people as much as Constantine did.
I think Augustus was the best leader because he was a humble leader. He didn't use his power of leadership for evil like some leaders did, and I think he really led the Roman empire well.
I think Caligula was the worst leader because he used his leadership for evil, not for good. He used his power the wrong way by killing people for no reason just to seem big and tough and turned the Roman Empire upside down.
Some leaders were militaristic, and others were more political. If i had to say which ruler is the best I would have to say Augustus. He was the first leader and in my opinion the best. His rule ended with Rome being in much better state than before and this is what makes him the best. Another ruler that was much like him is Constantine. They were both reliable and courageous winning many battles.
Then you had leaders like Marcus and Nero.. They were murderous, crazy, and psychotic abusing power and killing many people. All leaders had good moments and were successful, but many also had moments like Nero or Marcus and went off the deep end killing others.
I think that none of the emperor’s was the best because they were obsessed with power instead of its people and family. Like Vespasian and Nero they were great rulers but in the first Jewish roman war known as the Great Jewish Revolt, they persecuted a lot of Jews if they were stealing, when they did something wrong, or they just didn’t like them. In 66 AD, the emperor Nero chose Vespasian to quell the Jewish revolt because he was a "competent mediocrity" with no aristocratic background, so he would not be a threat. Vespasian’s claim to fame was when he was in the first Jewish roman war, proganda campaign, and the roman expansion of Britain. The downfall was his death because he was nearly seventy years old and so close to succeeds his goals and leader ship.
I think Constantine was the best leader of the Julio Claudian Dynasty. Even though he was forced to lead, he was fearless and brave, winning almost every battle he was thrown into.
I agree with Sofia that different kinds of emperors have different ways of ruling. It depended on how people saw you and how much you knew about ruling a whole empire. Some emperors were forced in rule like Claudius, who wasn't so brave but was just in the right place at the right time. He brought artwork and literature in the empire. I think people like Augustus and Tiberius, whose fathers were leaders before were at an advantage. Tiberius structured a very militaristic empire and Augustus left "a city of breaks... a city of marble."
Each ruler led Rome in their own way. Some were better than others, and some were worst than worst.
I believe Constantine was the best leader, he was strong brave, and was the first christian emperor. I also believe Vespasian was a great leader, even if he was unpopular he set that aside and did his job well.
Some of the worst Rulers were Tiberius, Nero, and Caligula. Their mind weren't in the right places, and they committed awful acts. they Tiberius trusted people to easily, and he was not dependable. Nero was a serial killer, who may or may not have set Rome on fire, and Caligula was cruel, a tyrant, and selfish.
I think to be a good leader, you must have the right personality and skills to take all that power in the palm of your hands. Some rulers, like Nero were born into leadership. Rulers of his family may have been wonderful leaders, but had an opposite perspective of ruling.
I think that the best ruler was Constantine. He was the most reliable to the citizens and extremely smart. He even won more then half, almost all of the battles he fought in. Also, he did not take advantage of power and Rome was much better then it was before he came.
Nero was definitly one of the worst leaders of Ancient Rome and one of the least successful. Rome was even destroyed over the course of his rulling because of him.
I am resubmitting the assignment.
I think that all of the emperors ruled with a strong belief that they could lead even if their people thought they couldn't. For example, Nero was hated by his people but that didn't mean that he would be kind enough to step down and let someone else lead.
Augustus was the best emperor in my opinion. He was loved by his people and he didn't think only of himself. He actually cared about his people. Augustus was one of the few in the Julio-Claudian Dynasty that actually ruling with his whole heart and not just out of greed.
The worst was Nero. From the beginning, Nero was in rule only for greed. It wasn't fair to the citizens and it was very selfish. Nero was a man that killed people for no reason and got away with it because he was emperor.
I think some emperors' claims to fame were basically to be loved by their people and make history like Augustus did. I think he downfall would be that you are hated by the people you are ruling and they end up killing you.
Daniel Kaufman said...
I believe good leadership skills are having the right morals, not killing your entire family, being honest and loyal, and knowing what you are doing.
In my opinion, the best emperor was Tiberius. I say Tiberius because of his unique military ability as a General conquering many lands. He was humble.
I say Nero was the worst emperor because he was a psycho who killed his own family and didn't know how to lead. Anyone who kills their own family does not know how to lead.
Tiberius's claim to fame was conquering many lands, including Pannonia, Dalmatia, and Raetia. Nero got his fame by killing alot of people and being an absolute psycho.
I believe that Augustus was a great leader because he was selfless and humble, also because he did not do many crazy murderous things.He had great leadership and courage. Also he made Rome a better place.
I think Caligula was the worst leader because he used his leadership for evil, not for good. He used his powers for all of the wrong reasons he just got to out of control.
Personally, I think that Constantine was the most accomplished ruler of Rome. With accepting Christianity, Constantine gave the needed boost for the religion to become widespread and publicly accepted by Rome. To this day, Constantinople still stands with its name a homage to its favored emperor. Constantine had to fight through inflammation throughout his empire, with Atilla the Hun attacking as well. With a terrified but religious empire, Constantine came out on top. He united his people by giving them a common God and therefore shared beliefs. He helped ban a mass together and keep Rome strong and united in its time of need.
I think constantine showed great leadership. he was very smart and he was there for everyone. He didn't kill any of his family members unlike other rulers that did. He was very humble andy wasn't conceited about his power.
I think caligula was the worst because he was selfish and rude. He enjoyed the idea of killing people and he took advantage of his power.
Post a Comment