Why did the roman empire remain peaceful even with emperors like Caligula and Nero?

Answer 1

Caligula was left with a strong army and during his reign maintained it. Even though his personal life and domestic policies were supposedly horrendous, his foreign policy was sound. Nero was not a weak emperor for most of his reign. He had two great generals under him, Corbolo and Vespasian and he used them to stop any trouble.

Answer 2

Peaceful is a relative term when describing the Romans. Rome itself remained relatively secure until the Ostrogoths sacked it and installed their king as the ruler of Rome ushering in the Dark Ages. Several of the outlying provinces faced sporadic conflict, Judea, Britannia, and the short lived province of Mesopotamia being prime examples. But to answer your question, Caligula and Nero were two extreme examples of Roman leadership, both being extremely poor stewards of government. In reality, the majority of the Roman emperors were unremarkable, some managed to maintain the status quo, others contributed very little or worse brought the Empire closer to its collapse. The Empire remained as long as it did through a combination of its organized legions and by making a shell of client states around its core which allowed the locals to have a small degree of independence whilst also allowing for a smooth transition into the Roman state.

Answer 3

The Roman Empire was not always at peace. In the third century there was a fifty-year period of military anarchy which historians call the Crisis of the Third Century. Military commanders were haled emperors by their own troops. They were then challenged by other commanders who were proclaimed emperors by their own troops. The turnover of emperors was high. Many were murdered, sometimes even by their own troops which had elevated them because they did not want to fight a civil war.

Answer 4

yes