Okay so yesterday I was scrolling through some history stuff online, right? And this question popped into my head: out of Rome's famous "Five Good Emperors," who was actually the best? Seemed simple enough, but man, figuring out how to rank them properly turned into a whole thing.
First step? Gotta know who we're even talking about. The usual list is Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. They ruled roughly from AD 96 to 180. Everyone always says they were the "good" ones compared to some real nutjobs later on. But good doesn't mean equal, you know? Some were builders, some fighters, some just kept the peace.
The Research Rabbit Hole
I started like everyone does: hitting up a bunch of websites and YouTube channels. Big mistake. Everywhere I looked, people had different opinions. Some folks worship Marcus Aurelius because of his philosophy stuff. Others think Trajan is the GOAT because he conquered so much land. Hadrian gets love for his wall. Nerva and Antoninus Pius? Often feel like the underdogs everyone forgets. Info overflow! Needed a system.
Took a breather. Coffee break time. Came back and decided to get real basic. What actually mattered for an emperor being "good"? Here's what I scribbled down:
- Did they expand the empire or just keep it together? Conquering land vs. holding onto it matters.
- How was life for regular people? Taxes okay? Food on tables? Peace?
- Did they pick the next emperor wisely? Like, was the transition smooth and actually set up future success? This is huge.
- Big building projects? Roads, walls, monuments – shows ambition and resources.
- Personal stuff? Were they mostly sane? Didn't murder their family on a whim? Low bar, but this is Rome!
The Actual Ranking Debacle
Started trying to put them in order. That's when the headaches got real. I actually wasted two whole hours arguing with myself, switching names around.
- Nerva comes first chronologically. Old guy, short reign. His big win? Picking Trajan to follow him. That was smart. But did he do much else? Not really. Decent guy who fixed a mess, but kinda forgettable. Bottom of my list for "best".
- Antoninus Pius next. Dude ruled forever – 23 years! Crazy peaceful reign. No major wars, just stability and building stuff. But maybe too quiet? Felt like he coasted on Hadrian's work. Hard to get excited, but keeping the empire stable is legit. Middle rank for me.
- Hadrian was fascinating. Stopped expanding, actually gave some land back! Focused inward – traveling everywhere, building that massive wall in Britain, fixing problems. The empire consolidated under him. Really important work. His wall? Still a tourist trap! Picked Antoninus Pius next, solid choice. Top contender.
- Trajan – wow. The empire got absolutely huge on his watch. Dacia, Parthia... major military wins. Built incredible stuff like Trajan's Forum and Markets in Rome. Empire reached its peak size. Died before things got messy. Feels like the ultimate winner... except...
- Marcus Aurelius. The philosopher king. Spent a ton of time dealing with pesky German tribes on the borders. Wrote his famous Meditations. Seems wise and thoughtful, right? But... his reign had major wars, plagues, he picked his useless son Commodus to succeed him – which totally blew up the whole "Good Emperor" streak. Big demerits.
This is where it got hard. Do you reward Trajan's massive expansion knowing it stretched things thin? Or Hadrian's consolidation which made things manageable? Marcus looks good on paper with his philosophy, but the Commodus mess is a massive black mark. How much does that count against him?
My Final Tally (Still Not 100% Sure!)
After way too much internal debate and a third coffee, here's where I landed my personal ranking for "Best":
- #5 Nerva (Important start, but short reign)
- #4 Antoninus Pius (Great stability, kinda boring)
- #3 Marcus Aurelius (Smart guy, bad judgement call on his son)
- #2 Hadrian (Tough call! Genius consolidator, the Empire needed that)
- #1 Trajan (Edge goes to him. Made Rome look absolutely unbeatable at its height)
Still feels shaky! Maybe it was the caffeine. But Trajan just feels like the peak. Biggest empire, biggest monuments, died before it could fall apart. Simple as that. Hadrian is a super close second though. Marcus? Popular, but picking Commodus dropped him down hard in my book. Next time I try this, I'll probably change my mind again! History ranking is messy. Fun though.
