0
Seven emperors of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty ruled the Roman Empire from 96 to 192. They were: Nerva (96-98) Trajan (98-117) Hadrian (117-138) Antoninus Pius (138-161) Marcus Aurelius (161-180) Lucius Verus (161-169) and Commodus (180-192). Lucius Verus was co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius until his death.
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What were the emperors called in rome from ad 161-180?
The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius ruled from AD 161-180.
When did Marcus Aurelius rule rome?
Marcus Aurelius died on March 17, 180 at the age of 58.180 CE.
Describe the sequence ofn empers who ruled rome from Augustus through the good emperors?
The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.
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 are nerva tarjan Marcus antoiushadrian known for?
These emperors have been called the five good emperors. The term 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 good-will 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: 'If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus [the emperors before and after the five good ones]. 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 [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 were the emperors called in rome from ad 161-180?
The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius ruled from AD 161-180.
Who was the emperor of rome in180?
You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.You could say that Rome had two emperors in the year 180. At first it was Marcus Aurelius, but he died in 180 and his son Commodus became emperor in the same year.
Who was the philosopher that wrote meditations and was the last of the five good emperors?
It was Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-180 AD)
When did Marcus Aurelius rule rome?
Marcus Aurelius died on March 17, 180 at the age of 58.180 CE.
Describe the sequence ofn empers who ruled rome from Augustus through the good emperors?
The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (with three quickie emperors in the year following Nero's death) ruled during this time span.
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."
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 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."
When did Macus Aurelius rule Rome?
Marcus Aurelius was proclaimed emperor because he had been adopted and designated as heir by the emperor Antoninus Pius. He reigned from the death of Antoninus Pius in 161 to his own death in 180.
What happened in ad 180 in ancient Rome?
Marcus Aurelius died in 180 AD. He was the last of the five good emperors: Nerva (ruled 96-98 AD), Trajan (ruled 98-117), Hadrian (ruled 117-138), Antoninus Pius (ruled 138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-180). They have been called good emperors because they were benign rulers, pursued moderate policies, ruled wisely, allowed a lot of freedom and were popular. This contrasted with the more tyrannical rule of other emperors. The famous historian Edward Gibbon wrote: 'If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus [the emperors before and after the five good ones]. 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 [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.' Marcus Aurelius was succeeded by his son Commodus. His behaviour became increasingly arbitrary and capricious and his bad rule caused political strife. Ancient historian Cassius Dio said that his rule marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron." This prompted Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus's reign as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire. Commodus was assassinated in 192, twelve year into his reign. His death was followed by the Year of the Five Emperors where five men (Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus and Septimius Severus) fought each other to usurp the imperial title. Septimius Severus was the final winner and managed to retain power. He founded the Severan dynasty.
What are nerva tarjan Marcus antoiushadrian known for?
These emperors have been called the five good emperors. The term 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 good-will 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: 'If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus [the emperors before and after the five good ones]. 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 [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 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."
