Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(3) DOMITIAN –

FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(81 – 96 AD: 15 YEARS 4 DAYS)

Modern historians have increasingly seen Domitian’s reign as laying the foundation of the golden age that immediately succeeded him (or at least did via a brief interregnum via Nerva).

His reign was distinctive or even unique for its economic success, above all in revaluing the currency, maintaining it through his reign by financial prudence and “rigorous taxation policy”. In his ranking of emperors, Spectrum asserts that that he “was the only emperor to have actually fixed the problem of inflation, the only one”. I’m not sure that he was as unique in that respect as Spectrum asserts but at very least it was exceedingly rare and he certainly “maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve”.

However, it was more than just the economy that he strengthened, although his economic management might be said to be representative of his prudent management of the empire and its administration as a whole.

“His foreign policy was realistic, rejecting expansionist warfare and negotiating peace” and “the military campaigns undertaken during Domitian’s reign were generally defensive in nature”. His military campaigns might not have been as conclusive or as overwhelmingly victorious as his critics would have preferred – notably against the Dacians, where Trajan finished the job – but he did leave the empire’s borders more secure, with his “most significant military contribution” as the development of the Limes Germanicus to defend the empire along the Rhine.

And his campaigns were, more or less, successful – extending the conquest of Britain into Scotland under his capable general Agricola, wars against the Germanic tribe of the Chatti (conferring upon himself the victory title of Germanicus Maximus), wars against the Dacians and other tribes across the Danube, and suppressing the revolt of governor Saturnius in Germania.

“Domitian is also credited on the easternmost evidence of Roman military presence, the rock inscription near Boyukdash mountain, in present-day Azerbaijan”. The Roman Empire may also have reached its northernmost and easternmost points during his reign – in Scotland (in the campaign by Agricola) and in Ireland (in a possible expedition, also by Agricola).

Otherwise, he was one of the Roman emperors with the largest architectural footprints in Rome with his extensive reconstruction of the city still damaged from disasters preceding his reign – and even the critical Suetonius observed “the imperial bureaucracy never ran more efficiently than under Domitian” with “historically low corruption”. Persecution of religious minorities such as Jews or Christians was minimal, if any, at least as observed by contemporaries although some was subsequently reputed to him.

Yet for all that, in a similar vein to the negative portrayals of Tiberius only even more so, Domitian is often seen as a bad emperor or even one of the worst, echoing senatorial hostility toward him as a ‘cruel tyrant’ through the ages.

So where does the hate for Domitian come from, often expressed in terms of ranking him as one of Rome’s worst and most tyrannical emperors? Why, from the Senate of course, reflecting the mutual antagonism between Domitian and the Senate, hence the latter’s official damnatio memoriae on Domitian after his death by assassination in a conspiracy by court officials.

Fortunately, modern historians have revised or reassessed Domitian as an emperor “whose administration provided the foundation for the Principate of the peaceful 2nd century”, with the policies of his immediate successors differing little from his in reality.

However, while one doesn’t have to agree with the senatorial hostility towards Domitian (and its viewpoint of him as a ‘bad’ emperor), one does have to recognize it, hence his ranking as special mention rather than in the top ten (as Spectrum does – in fifth place no less, over Marcus Aurelius in sixth place, because money trumps philosophy).

Like it or not, dealing with the Senate and senatorial class was a fact of political life in Rome, at least the Rome of the principate – and hence managing relations with the Senate was an important part of being emperor. The diplomacy and tact of Augustus towards the Senate is part of what made him so acclaimed, not least by the Senate who loved him for it – as they did Domitian’s father Vespasian and even more so his brother Titus. The mutual antagonism and hostility between the Senate and Domitian ultimately saw him assassinated for it, which might well have seen the empire in another civil war for imperial succession but for Nerva.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Literally with respect to the currency

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(6) BEST: VESPASIAN –
FLAVIAN DYNASTY
(69 – 79 AD: 9 YEARS 11 MONTHS 22 DAYS)

Founder of the Flavian dynasty (of himself and his two sons), restorer of the Pax Romana, divine pharaoh – and possibly…the Messiah? Well perhaps not that last one – to paraphase Monty Python’s Life of Brian, he wasn’t the Messiah, just a very good emperor.

And yes – you’ve read that title right. For those who followed my Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors, I’ve decided to swap Vespasian for Domitian (and the Flavian Dynasty as second best imperial dynasty) in sixth place in my Top 10 Best Roman Emperors.

I stand by my ‘heterodox’ revisionism of Domitian as a good emperor, contrary to the more ‘orthodox’ view of him as a bad emperor or even one of the worst, echoing senatorial hostility toward him as a ‘cruel tyrant’ through the ages. As I noted, fortunately modern historians have revised or reassessed him in a more positive light. Hence I will retain him in my special mentions for good emperors – in a similar vein to Tiberius, who is often also portrayed negatively.

My original placement of Domitian reflected that in some ways he was better than his father – a longer reign for one thing (indeed, longer than any reign since Tiberius) and his distinctive or even unique achievement in revaluing the currency, not devaluing it. While Vespasian was good in his economic management (with Domitian presumably inheriting that sound economic sense), he still slightly devalued the currency.

However, I’ve decided to rank Vespasian over Domitian. One reason is that whereas Domitian inherited the throne through his father and brother, Vespasian did after all found the dynasty, having to advance his imperial claim in a civil war of succession.

More fundamentally, while one doesn’t have to agree with the senatorial hostility towards Domitian (and its viewpoint of him as a ‘bad’ emperor), one does have to recognize it. Like it or not, dealing with the Senate and senatorial class was a fact of political life in Rome, at least the Rome of the principate – and hence managing relations with the Senate was an important part of being emperor. The diplomacy and tact of Augustus towards the Senate is part of what made him so acclaimed, not least by the Senate who loved him for it – as they did Vespasian and his other son Titus. The mutual antagonism and hostility between the Senate and Domitian ultimately saw him assassinated, which might well have seen the empire in another civil war for imperial succession but for Nerva.

Vespasian restored the Pax Romana and political stability to the empire after the civil war of the Year of the Four Emperors, as well as fiscal stability to an empire left desperately in debt by the depradations of Nero and Vitellius (albeit with some slight debasement of the currency).

“His fiscal reforms and consolidation of the empire generated political stability and a vast Roman building program.” The latter included that most famous of Roman landmarks, the Colosseum.

Vespasian had a distinguished military career in Britain and, most famously, leading the campaign (and besieging Jerusalem) against the Jewish Revolt, in the First Jewish-Roman War.

He left the latter for his son Titus to achieve victory while he advanced his imperial claim in the civil war of succession after the death of Nero, seizing Egypt and its critical grain supply to Rome. In Egypt, he was hailed as literally divine pharaoh (son of the creator god Amun or Zeus-Ammon, and incarnation of Serapis) amidst claims of miracles and visions – doubling down on literally messianic prophecies.

“According to Suetonius, a prophecy ubiquitous in the Eastern provinces claimed that from Judaea would come the future rulers of the world. Vespasian eventually believed that this prophecy applied to him, and found a number of omens and oracles that reinforced this belief.”

“Josephus (as well as Tacitus), reporting on the conclusion of the Jewish war, reported a prophecy that around the time when Jerusalem and the Second Temple would be taken, a man from their own nation, viz. the Messiah, would become governor “of the habitable earth”. Josephus interpreted the prophecy to denote Vespasian and his appointment as emperor in Judea.”

One of the more entertaining theorists of ‘Christ-myth’ history, Joseph Atwill, in his 2005 book Caesar’s Messiah, proposes that the Gospels and Jesus were nothing more than Flavian fanfiction written by Josephus and others, concocting Christianitity as a pacifist and pro-Roman religion as a solution to the problem of militant Judaism. Although apparently Atwill proposes that the Son of Man in the Gospels was Vespasian’s son Titus – which would make a Flavian holy trinity of Vespasian the Father, Titus the Son, and Domitian the Holy Spirit…?

Back to more mundane earthly matters, aided by the spoils of war from the Jewish Temple, Vespasian restored the finances and treasury of the empire, through tax reform and other means, most famously the urine tax on public toilets (such that urinals are named for him in modern Romance languages) with an anecdotal saying attributed to him that money doesn’t stink.

Apart from the First Jewish-Roman War, Vespasian suppressed the (second) Batavian Rebellion in Gaul and expanded the Roman conquest of Britain in campaigns led by the skilled general Agricola.

“Vespasian was known for his wit and his amiable manner alongside his commanding personality and military prowess..According to Suetonius, Vespasian ‘bore the frank language of his friends, the quips of pleaders, and the impudence of the philosophers with the greatest patience'”. Hence, it could be said that Vespasian had a flair for diplomacy and tact to rival Augustus (in marked contrast to his younger son) – and at a similarly critical juncture to placate the Senate and secure the stability of the principate under a new dynasty.

Dying of diarrhea (no, really), “Vespasian appears to have approached his own impending cult” (of imperial divinity) “with dry humour: according to Suetonius, his last words were puto deus fio (“I think I’m turning into a god”).

RANKING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

MAXIMUS:
No imperial victory titles as such, but he did have a triumph with his two sons for their victory in the First Roman-Jewish War.

DEIFICATION:
Yes, he turned into a god

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON:
Spectrum initially omitted Vespasian from his rankings, but did a supplementary video stating he would have ranked Vespasian eleventh out of all emperors before 395

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(1) CLAUDIUS –

JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(41-54 AD: 13 YEARS 8 MONTHS 19 DAYS)

“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”

Yes – it’s the first of six special mentions where you could arguably swap them into the top ten best emperors without too much protest.

It was a close call between Claudius and the other good imperial candidate from the Julio-Claudian dynasty who is my next special mention entry. Claudius just won out for a few reasons, but primarily because he inherited the empire from the worst emperor as opposed to the best. And I use inherited very loosely, as he was not a formal heir but was thrust into his position as emperor by the Praetorian Guard after they had assassinated his predecessor, Caligula – the tradition is that one of the Guard found him hiding behind a curtain and declared him emperor.

Also, Claudius was put upon throughout his life – hence Dovahhatty’s catchphrase for him “such was life for Uncle Claudius”, originating from his physical infirmities he had since youth, including a limp and stammer, although he claimed to have exaggerated them to survive the reign of Caligula.

And a lot of people have a soft spot for him from his sympathetic portrayal in Robert Graves’ I, Claudius and its BBC TV adaptation.

Anyway, he was thrown headfirst into the position of emperor without any choice or background for it on his part and he did a pretty damn good job of it, essentially emulating Augustus and pulling it off to a substantial degree.

He was an able and efficient administrator, above all restoring the empire’s finances after their ruination by the excesses of Caligula’s reign – while also being an ambitious builder of projects and public works across the empire and in its capital.

He also expanded the empire in its first (and most enduring) major expansion since Augustus – annexing or completing the annexation of Thrace (so that the empire finally encircled the Mediterranean completely), Noricum, Lycia, Judaea and Mauretania – but is best known for the conquest of Britain during his reign, although Rome might have been better off without that province in the long run.

His biggest drawback was his choice of successor as Nero, albeit secured largely through his wife (and Nero’s mother) Agrippina’s manipulation of him – including, as it was widely believed by contemporaries, murdering him by poison.

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(1) WORST: CALIGULA –

JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(37-41 AD: 3 YEARS 10 MONTHS 6 DAYS)

“Would that the Roman people had but one neck”

Ah – Caligula, dreaming of choking out all Rome, the archetype of legendary cruelty and depravity as well as that of the capricious and insane tyrant, so much so that there is a trope of the Caligula named for him (and we all know the type, depressingly frequent in history and culture).

Cue the gag for Caligula learning his capriciousness from Tiberius in Capri.

As I said for Nero, what can I say? You can’t argue with the Gospel of Suetonius, or the Revelations of Bob Guccione in his 1979 Caligula film. Or with the Gospel of Robert Graves which follows Suetonius, or the Revelations of Judge Dredd with Caligula as its Chief Judge Cal in The Day the Law Died.

Also, as I said for Nero, while there may be some issues with the accuracy of sources, particularly the more lurid details recorded by Suetonius, there’s just too much insane smoke for there to have not been an insane fire.

Speaking of Suetonius, if you only read one chapter from Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars (and it is available free online), then that should be his chapter on Caligula. It’s a hoot! Although I say that from the safe distance of two millennia as well as from Rome itself, because I wouldn’t put it past his ghost or ghoul to get me.

Caligula of course wasn’t his name, but his nickname – uncannily similar to Caracalla subsequently, for an item of clothing worn by each while cosplaying as a soldier, although in Caligula’s case it was his mother cosplaying him as a child in army camps and for his boots rather than a cloak. That’s right – his nickname translates as “Little Boots” or “Bootsy”, which is adorable until he grows up to become emperor.

And you don’t want to make Caligula emperor – you wouldn’t like him when he’s emperor.

Although the sources suggest that people initially did like him as emperor, because among other things, he seems to have ruled well for the first six months until falling sick – “upon recovering, Caligula had permanently lost his hair and apparently his mind”. Or as he perceived it, he had become a divine being. And who’s to say? I can well imagine that’s exactly how a divine being might act when trapped in a mortal form – particularly the divine beings from classical mythology, as it’s how they act a lot of the time. After all, only a god could be that crazy and get away with it.

Anyway, all this sadly suggests that he might have been decent but for sickness making him insane. Or not, I have my doubts – and I note the Gospel of Robert Graves, a.k.a I, Claudius, has him as somewhat psychopathic from the outset.

It’s all there in the sources, particularly Suetonius, which “focus upon his cruelty, sadism, extravagance, and sexual perversion” – “committing incest with his sisters, sending his army against the sea after declaring war on the ocean god Neptune and having them stab the waves and collect shells as booty, marrying a woman who was 9 months pregnant so he wouldn’t have to wait for an heir (whether or not it was his is unclear), using a tax hike upon the birth of his daughter to provide gold for him to roll around in, and wanting to make his favorite horse a consul”.

Also arbitrarily confiscating property in increasingly outrageous for his own spending, punishing citizens for being handsome or having more hair than him, and opening up his palace as a brothel. Actually, I’m with him on that last one.

Indeed, Caligula was so over the top insane that it sometimes seems to be parody or epic trolling – Caligula would rock it on Twitter X.

I can’t resist quoting The Caligula trope on TV Tropes, given how well it encapsulates, well, THE Caligula:

“The Caligula will be wildly irrational, violently moody, extremely debauched, will never tolerate being told anything they don’t want to hear, and are probably afflicted with a god complex. In short, they will be a Psychopathic Manchild with the power of life or death over everyone whom they can reach. They may be a sexual deviant, or they might take pleasure in the pain and suffering they cause. They may indulge in renaming cities or even the entire country after themself or throwing out increasingly ridiculous decrees with brutal punishments in store for anyone who breaks them. Whatever form the madness takes, one thing is certain: to do anything the Caligula finds displeasing is to inevitably be dragged off to a grisly death or worse. Of course, any number of things might trigger their rage, and they might even decide on a whim to punish those who have not done anything at all”.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (WORST-TIER)

EMPIRE DEBAUCHER

MAXIMUS:

Well unless you count Neptune. Caligula should have had a triumph with all the shells

DAMNED:

No formal damnatio memoriae but history has damned him

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON:

Spectrum ranks him as the second worst emperor (prior to 395), with Elagabalus as the worst (as a combination of the worst traits of Caligula and Nero)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome IX: Augustus

(1) BEST: AUGUSTUS

JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(27 BC – 14 AD: 40 YEARS 7 MONTHS 3 DAYS)

THE Roman emperor – the first and best emperor, the definitive and archetypal emperor.

The most august emperor. Dare I say it, the most Augustus of emperors, or rather, Augustus of Augustuses, since all emperors were titled Augustus for his title (not to mention the eighth month of the year) or Caesar for his adoptive family name.

Augustus is commonly nominated as the best or top emperor and I’m not about to dissent from that. It’s a common nomination for a reason. The Roman Senate themselves routinely invoked him as the first of their two benchmarks or gold standards when inaugurating new emperors. I’ve already referred to the second part of this invocation in reference to Trajan, but of course the full phrase also invoked Augustus – felicior Augusto, melior Traiano, may you be “luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan”. Luckier or more fortunate that is, with the connotation of divine fortune that favored Augustus. And since the Senate deified Augustus, consistent with the imperial cult he cultivated (heh), he made his own divine fortune.

Caesar Augustus – born Gaius Octavius and also known as Octavian – instituted the Roman Empire itself, characterized by the imperial peace, the Pax Romana or Pax Augusta. The grandnephew of Julius Caesar and named in Caesar’s will as his adopted son and heir, he inherited Caesar’s name, estate, and the loyalty of Caesar’s legions.

He formed the Second Triumvirate with Mark Antony and some other guy no one remembers (Lepidus) to defeat the assassins of Caesar. The Triumvirate effectively divided the Republic between them as a duumvirate of Octavian and Antony, with the former in control of its western provinces and the latter its eastern provinces. Octavian then famously fought and defeated Antony in the latter’s alliance (and romance) with Cleopatra, taking Egypt from de facto Roman client state to province.

With Octavian as sole ruler of the Republic, he adopted the title by which he has thereafter been known (and used to honour his imperial successors) – Augustus. And also Princeps or First Citizen (Princeps Civitas), which has come to denominate the Principate, the system of imperial rule instituted by him and which endured for two centuries until Diocletian’s Dominate. That system essentially involved Augustus maintaining the façade or formal appearance of the Republic over the reality of imperial authority and institutions of empire, hence the modesty of the Princeps title.

And having transformed the Republic into an empire, he dramatically enlarged the empire – annexing Egypt of course in his defeat of Anthony and Cleopatra, but also conquering northern Hispania (modern Spain and Portugal), the Alpine regions of Raetia and Noricum (modern Switzerland, Bavaria, Austria, Slovenia), and Illyricum and Pannonia (modern Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia). He also extended the borders of the province of Africa (the former territory of Carthage), peacefully converted the client state of Galatia (part of modern Turkey but with Gauls!) into a Roman province, and added Judea to the province of Syria as a recurring source of unforeseen Roman imperial woes, not to mention Christianity.

In other words, he sealed up the Mediterranean under Roman supremacy (not to mention Italy’s alpine buffer), making the Mediterranean their b*tch – or mare nostrum as they called it. Not so much Germany though, with Augustine famously mourning the defeat and loss of three legions under their commander Varus in the Battle of Teutoberg Forest – “Quintili Vare, legiones redde! “(“Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!”).

Oh well – even the greatest can’t win them all. However, it is a convenient segue to a comparison between Augustus and Julius Caesar. Caesar may well have been more charismatic than Augustus and definitely was a greater military leader, but I would say that Augustus obviously had greater political acumen than Caesar – given that the latter’s ambitions provoked his own assassination while the former’s created the empire. And fortunately Augustus could rely on the skill of his military commanders to compensate for his lack of skill – foremost among them Marcus Agrippa, who can lay claim to being among the best Roman military leaders.

After that comparison to Julius Caesar, I can’t resist quoting Dovahhatty’s comparison of Augustus to Alexander the Great (upon him visiting the latter’s tomb, where Dovahhatty has Augustus scoff “Pfft – what a loser!”):

“For when Alexander became king, he was twenty. When Octavian was adopted by Caesar, he was nineteen. When Alexander took thirteen years to conquer the sh*thole of the East, Octavian took the same time to subdue the entire Mediterranean. And while Alexander’s empire disintegrated the nanosecond after he died, Octavian would lay the foundations for the greatest empire in human history”.

Beyond the frontiers of his empire, Augustus “secured the empire with a buffer region of client states and made peace with the Parthian Empire through diplomacy”. Within them, “he reformed the Roman system of taxation, developed networks of roads with an official courier system, established a standing army, established the Praetorian Guard as well as official police and fire-fighting services for Rome, and rebuilt much of the city during his reign”. As he famously said, he found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble.

Finally, the longevity of Augustus’s reign and its legacy to the Roman world should not be overlooked as a key factor in the success of the Roman Empire, if only because as Tacitus observed, the younger generation at his death in 14 AD (after his reign of over 40 years!) had never known anything else than his Principate.

But it wasn’t just that – “Augustus’s own experience, his patience, his tact, and his political acumen also played their parts. He directed the future of the empire down many lasting paths, from the existence of a standing professional army stationed at or near the frontiers, to the dynastic principle so often employed in the imperial succession, to the embellishment of the capital at the emperor’s expense. Augustus’s ultimate legacy was the peace and prosperity the Empire enjoyed for the next two centuries under the system he initiated. His memory was enshrined in the political ethos of the Imperial age as a paradigm of the good emperor. Every emperor of Rome adopted his name, Caesar Augustus, which gradually lost its character as a name and eventually became a title. The Augustan era poets Virgil and Horace praised Augustus as a defender of Rome, an upholder of moral justice, and an individual who bore the brunt of responsibility in maintaining the empire”

(By the way, if I was extending my top ten to emperors past 476 AD, the top five would remain the same. Basil II, Justinian and Heraclius would be in sixth to eighth place and I’d probably shuffle Valentinian out for Alexios I in ninth place, while placing the last emperor Constantine XI in my wildcard tenth place. That is probably over-ranking him, but I just can’t resist the symmetry of first and last emperors in first and tenth place. Besides, he chose to go out with the empire in a bang rather than a whimper – and that’s worth something, even a wildcard tenth place).

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD-TIER)

EMPIRE-MAKER

MAXIMUS:

Augustus didn’t claim any formal victory titles that I could find, but did hold three triumphs – for his conquest of Pannonia, for the naval victory against Cleopatra and Antony at Actium, and for the conquest of Egypt

DEIFICATION:

Divine Augustus!

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON: Exactly the same – top spot, as he also was in the ranking by Daily Roman Updates, but no surprise there.

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XII: The Five Good Emperors

(2) BEST: TRAJAN –

NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(98 -117 AD: 19 YEARS 6 MONTHS 10/14 DAYS)

The Optimus Prime of Roman emperors. No, really, as in the Senate gave him the title of Optimus or Optimus Princeps, “the best” or “the best emperor”, one of the two benchmarks or gold standards invoked by the Senate for every new emperor thereafter, wishing them to be better than Trajan…but none were (with the possible exception of Aurelian). A little like Jedi wishing may the Force be with you.

Everybody loved Trajan. The army, with whom he was popular as he had distinguished himself in military campaigns against the Germanic tribes. The Praetorian Guard, whose revolt had forced his predecessor Nerva to adopt him as heir and successor. The people. The Senate, who deified him after his death, and as I said, invoked him thereafter for new emperors.

“As an emperor, Trajan’s reputation has endured – he is one of the few rulers whose reputation has survived 19 centuries.”

“Even Christian historians saw him as a virtuous pagan, among other things for not persecuting them too hard during his reign (Catholic tradition holds that Pope Gregory I briefly raised Trajan from the dead in order to convert him). He is immortalized in Heaven in The Divine Comedy”.

He was a successful soldier-emperor, who took the Roman Empire to its greatest territorial extent by the time of his death – a greater area is argued on occasion for Septimus Severus, although that is not clear and just extended worthlessly further into the Saharan desert at most.

Famously, he extended the empire by the conquest of Dacia in his wars against it, and by his annexation of Mesopotamia, Armenia and Assyria as Roman provinces in his war against the Parthian Empire. Less famously, he seems to have quickly and quietly annexed the Arabian client kingdom of Nabataea, possibly because they were just signed up from his pure awesomeness because little else is recorded of it.

And his general Quietus suppressed a widespread revolt by the Jews in the eastern provinces that henceforth bore an adaptation of the name Quietus – the Kitos War, yet another of those recurring revolts by the Jews against the empire before Hadrian wiped Judaea and Jerusalem from the map.

It wasn’t just all conquest or war – he was also a philanthropic ruler, albeit at some cost in debasing the currency. He oversaw prolific building projects and social welfare policies.

May Trojan’s force be with you, indeed.

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

EMPIRE-MAKER

MAXIMUS:

Germanicus, Dacicus, Parthicus – and of course, Optimus or best

DEIFIED:

By the gods and divine Trajan, yes!

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON: Exactly the same, in second place – just as it was for Daily Roman Updates, and the Roman Senate for that matter.