04-17-2014, 01:42 PM
To tag-team with "The Most Underrated Emporer" Thread, who, in your opinion has been the most overrated Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus?
I reserve my comendation for the two late "great" emporers, Constantinianus and Theodisius, whom I believe did more damage (esp. in the case of Theodisius) than good to the Empire. Theodisius I blame for being an incompetent commander, wasting away what was left of the roman army and "closing the western mind." As to Constantine, the bottom line was that the man was a usurper, who happened to be a great commander and politician, and eventually made it to the top. I also place some serious blame on him for depleting the military resoruces of the empire. I also don;t think his decisions to quarter the field armies in cities has been given sufficient critical examination.
I also tend to believe that Diocletian is overrated to the extent that the conventional view is that his Tetrarchy was devised as some form of "master plan." I believe it was much more of a realistic power sharing arrangement amoung the leading generals who realized they had more to gain by "dividing the spoils" then fighting over them. I think there are some serious questions as to the extent to which his "force of personality" was as great as usually stated, given the undue influence Galerius seemed to have, especially in the choice of succession when he "voluntarily" abdicated. I am not saying that Diocletian was not a major influence and and great source of stability for the later empire. I just think that the books tends to oversimplify things in the way the Tetrarchy is generally portrayed.
I reserve my comendation for the two late "great" emporers, Constantinianus and Theodisius, whom I believe did more damage (esp. in the case of Theodisius) than good to the Empire. Theodisius I blame for being an incompetent commander, wasting away what was left of the roman army and "closing the western mind." As to Constantine, the bottom line was that the man was a usurper, who happened to be a great commander and politician, and eventually made it to the top. I also place some serious blame on him for depleting the military resoruces of the empire. I also don;t think his decisions to quarter the field armies in cities has been given sufficient critical examination.
I also tend to believe that Diocletian is overrated to the extent that the conventional view is that his Tetrarchy was devised as some form of "master plan." I believe it was much more of a realistic power sharing arrangement amoung the leading generals who realized they had more to gain by "dividing the spoils" then fighting over them. I think there are some serious questions as to the extent to which his "force of personality" was as great as usually stated, given the undue influence Galerius seemed to have, especially in the choice of succession when he "voluntarily" abdicated. I am not saying that Diocletian was not a major influence and and great source of stability for the later empire. I just think that the books tends to oversimplify things in the way the Tetrarchy is generally portrayed.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?