0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What made the 5 good emperors good?
The term five good emperors was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors, which excluded Titus, because Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian, while the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor). Machiavelli thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. He also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started again. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all who were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' Machiavelli said that five good emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. They were benign rulers, lived good lives pursued moderate policies, ruled wisely, allowed a lot of freedom and earned the goodwill of the people. The term five good emperors involve a bias on the part of Machiavelli because not all he emperors by birth which preceded the five good emperors were bad The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
How did the 5 good roman emperors get their name?
The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.
Who were the good emperors of Rome?
The term five good emperors was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. Machiavelli mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors, which excluded Titus, because Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian, while the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor). Machiavelli thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. He also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started again. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all who were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' Machiavelli said that five good emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. They were benign rulers, lived good lives pursued moderate policies, ruled wisely, allowed a lot of freedom and earned the goodwill of the people. The term is the fruit of his biased views. In fact, Machiavelli saw Titus, who reigned before his "five good emperors" as a good emperor, but ruled him out for the reason explained below. The seven emperors before the five good ones (apart for the three men who ruled shortly in the fights for power of the Year of the Four Emperors, 69 AD, which Vespasian won) were not necessarily bad. In the reign of the early emperors there was tension between the emperors, who were absolute rulers, and the senators and the aristocracy who disliked their power. Not all he emperors by birth which preceded the five good emperors were bad. Moreover, Machiavelli (And other historians after him) tended to take the writings of (aristocratic) ancient Romans about the emperors at face value. Some emperors who were unpopular with the aristocracy were portrayed in what was most probably a slanderous way. More recently, a more critical appraisal by modern historians had put these emperors in a more favourable light. The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon, who endorsed Machiavelli's view, wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
Was the roman empire a good or bad thing?
_Bad_Good"> Bad Good1.Caligula (37-41) 1.Nevra (96-98)2.Elagabalus (218-224) 2.Trajan (98-117)3.Commodus (180-192) 3.Hadrian (117-138)4.Nero (54-68) 4.Antoninus Pius (138-161)5.Domitian (81-96) 5.Marcus Aurelius (161-180)
What led to the reign of the five good emperors?
Nothing specific led to the reign of the five good emperors. They were men who succeeded the imperial title. The term the 'five good emperors' was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. The term is the fruit of the ideological views and not necessarily a fair comparison with their predecessors. For example, he excluded Titus from the term even though he considered him a good emperor. He said that these emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81)) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors because Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian, while the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor). Machiavelli thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. They were benign rulers, lived good lives pursued moderate policies, ruled wisely, allowed a lot of freedom and earned the goodwill of the people. He also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started again. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all who were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
What made the 5 good emperors good?
The term five good emperors was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors, which excluded Titus, because Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian, while the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor). Machiavelli thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. He also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started again. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all who were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' Machiavelli said that five good emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. They were benign rulers, lived good lives pursued moderate policies, ruled wisely, allowed a lot of freedom and earned the goodwill of the people. The term five good emperors involve a bias on the part of Machiavelli because not all he emperors by birth which preceded the five good emperors were bad The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
What good qualitites of good emperors in comparison to Augustus's successors?
The term five good emperors was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. It is the fruit of his biased views. In fact, Machiavelli saw Titus, who reigned before his "five good emperors" as a good emperor, but ruled him out for the reason explained below. The seven emperors before the five good ones (apart for the three men who ruled shortly in the fights for power of the Year of the Four Emperors, 69 AD, which Vespasian won) were not necessarily bad. In the reign of the early emperors there was tension between the emperors, who were absolute rulers, and the senators and the aristocracy who disliked their power. Not all he emperors by birth which preceded the five good emperors were bad. Moreover, Machiavelli (And other historians after him) tended to take the writings of (aristocratic) ancient Romans about the emperors at face value. Some emperors who were unpopular with the aristocracy were portrayed in what was most probably a slanderous way. More recently, a more critical appraisal by modern historians had put these emperors in a more favourable light. Machiavelli mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors, which excluded Titus, because Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian, while the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor). Machiavelli thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. He also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started again. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all who were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' Machiavelli said that five good emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. They were benign rulers, lived good lives pursued moderate policies, ruled wisely, allowed a lot of freedom and earned the goodwill of the people. The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
How did the 5 good roman emperors get their name?
The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.The so-called "five good emperors" got their name from the Italian political writer Machiavelli. He referred to them as such because of their moderate and wise rule.
Who were the good emperors of Rome?
The term five good emperors was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. Machiavelli mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors, which excluded Titus, because Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian, while the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor). Machiavelli thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. He also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started again. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all who were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' Machiavelli said that five good emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. They were benign rulers, lived good lives pursued moderate policies, ruled wisely, allowed a lot of freedom and earned the goodwill of the people. The term is the fruit of his biased views. In fact, Machiavelli saw Titus, who reigned before his "five good emperors" as a good emperor, but ruled him out for the reason explained below. The seven emperors before the five good ones (apart for the three men who ruled shortly in the fights for power of the Year of the Four Emperors, 69 AD, which Vespasian won) were not necessarily bad. In the reign of the early emperors there was tension between the emperors, who were absolute rulers, and the senators and the aristocracy who disliked their power. Not all he emperors by birth which preceded the five good emperors were bad. Moreover, Machiavelli (And other historians after him) tended to take the writings of (aristocratic) ancient Romans about the emperors at face value. Some emperors who were unpopular with the aristocracy were portrayed in what was most probably a slanderous way. More recently, a more critical appraisal by modern historians had put these emperors in a more favourable light. The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon, who endorsed Machiavelli's view, wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
What was a negative result of the leadership of the good emperors?
There were not many negative consequences which resulted from the leadership of the five good emperors. That is why they were called the good emperors. The term the 'five good emperors' was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. He said that these emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81)) Nerva (ruled 96-98 AD), Trajan (ruled 98-117), Hadrian (ruled 117-138), Antoninus Pius (ruled 138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors because these men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor) and he thought that this was why they were good rulers. They were good rulers, lived good lives and earned the goodwill of the people. Machiavelli also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started and the ruin of the empire commenced. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad. All were good who succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' The famous historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
Were all the good emperors adopted?
No, there were good emperors who were biological sons of previous emperors. Titus for one. Some of them were designated as heir without being adopted and others were appointed by the military.
What was the period of bad ramon emperors?
There was not a period of bad Roman emperors. There was a period of good emperors. The term the 'five good emperors' was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. He said that these emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81)) Nerva (ruled 96-98 AD), Trajan (ruled 98-117), Hadrian (ruled 117-138), Antoninus Pius (ruled 138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors because these men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor) and he thought that this was why they were good rulers. They were good rulers, lived good lives and earned the goodwill of the people. Machiavelli also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started and the ruin of the empire commenced. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad. All were good who succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' This is a bit on an extreme view as there were also good emperors after the "five good emperors." Still, the bad rule of Commodus (who succeeded Marcus Aurelius) led to the end of the period of relative political stability in the empire which historians have called Pax Romana (roman peace). The famous historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
Was the roman empire a good or bad thing?
_Bad_Good"> Bad Good1.Caligula (37-41) 1.Nevra (96-98)2.Elagabalus (218-224) 2.Trajan (98-117)3.Commodus (180-192) 3.Hadrian (117-138)4.Nero (54-68) 4.Antoninus Pius (138-161)5.Domitian (81-96) 5.Marcus Aurelius (161-180)
What led to the reign of the five good emperors?
Nothing specific led to the reign of the five good emperors. They were men who succeeded the imperial title. The term the 'five good emperors' was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. The term is the fruit of the ideological views and not necessarily a fair comparison with their predecessors. For example, he excluded Titus from the term even though he considered him a good emperor. He said that these emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81)) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors because Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian, while the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor). Machiavelli thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. They were benign rulers, lived good lives pursued moderate policies, ruled wisely, allowed a lot of freedom and earned the goodwill of the people. He also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started again. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all who were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
What is a good emperor?
The term the 'five good emperors' was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. He said that these Roman emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81)) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors because the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor), whereas Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian. Machiavelli thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. They were good rulers, lived good lives and earned the goodwill of the people. He also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started and the ruin of the empire commenced. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all who were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
Who are all of the 5 good emperors?
The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.The so-called fine good emperors of Rome were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.
What were the good things that the 5 good emperors did?
The term the 'five good emperors' was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. He said that these emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81)) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors because the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor), whereas Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian. He thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. They were good rulers, lived good lives and earned the goodwill of the people. Machiavelli also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started and the ruin of the empire commenced. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.' The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom.
