0
There was no period of bad emperors as such. The term "five good emperors" is a historical tag given to the five emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius because there was no great political crises during their reigns and the empire ran smoothly. A far as "bad emperors" went, you could say that every emperor had his negative points even Augustus -- some more than others.
What else can I help you with?
How did the Roman Empire survive so many inept rulers?
If you are referring to the period of rule by emperors, not all emperors were inept. Apart for the period of military anarchy of the crisis of the third century, most of them were not bad administrators.
What was the royal color of Ancient Rome?
During the period of the monarchy red as the colour of the kings. During the period of rule by emperors purple was the colour of the emperors.
Where all of the emperors of Ancient Rome bad?
Yes.
How was Rome affected by good and bad emperors?
augutus
What did the ancient Romans believe came after death for emporers?
The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.
How did the Roman Empire survive so many inept rulers?
If you are referring to the period of rule by emperors, not all emperors were inept. Apart for the period of military anarchy of the crisis of the third century, most of them were not bad administrators.
Why are the Julian emperors often referred to as the Bad Emperors?
Ever time they were emperors, something bad happend.(ex. war)
What was the royal color of Ancient Rome?
During the period of the monarchy red as the colour of the kings. During the period of rule by emperors purple was the colour of the emperors.
Who were the bad emperors of rome?
Nero and Vespasian
Where all of the emperors of Ancient Rome bad?
Yes.
How was Rome affected by good and bad emperors?
augutus
What historical event is associated with the fall of rome?
The bad emperors
What did the ancient Romans believe came after death for emporers?
The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.The Romans believed that either damnation or deification came after death for their emperors. The bad ones, they "dammed their memory" and erased their names from the rolls of emperors. The good ones were deified and were considered gods.
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."
Who led the Romans during the Pax Romana?
The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.The Pax Romana was a period of loosely 2oo years and Rome was led by the emperors during this time. They ranged from Augustus to the last of the five good emperors.
How could you rate the overalll leadership of the roman empire?
There is not a straightforward answer because this empire lasted for more than 800 years and things changed over time. The Empire first grew during the period of the Roman Republic. The republic was ill equipped for dealing with having an empire, was torn apart by a series of civil wars and fell. Thus there was a lack of proper leadership of the empire. The republic was replaced by rule by emperors. In the period of the early empire (understood as rule by emperors) and the Pax Romana (a period of relative political stability in the empire) the was good leadership. The Romans respected the religions and customs of the conquered peoples and allowed their elites to run local affairs. They also promoted the development of trade and built infrastructure which helped with this. The emperors cultivated good relations with the peoples of the Roman provinces. This was a period of good leadership. For some 50 years in the 3rd century there was a period of military anarchy. Military commanders were proclaimed emperors by their troops and were then challenged by other military commanders who were hailed emperors by their troops. There was a lot of infighting. Many emperors were murdered, sometimes by their troops which had proclaimed them emperors because they did not want to fight a civil war. There were also several usurper emperors. Two parts of the empire succeeded for a while. The chaos paved the way for several attempts to invade the empire and several raids into the empire. This was a period of bad leadership. The Emperor Diocletian restored stability and initiated a period of more autocratic imperial rule. Overall, the leadership of this period was good. With the beginning of the invasions of the western part of the empire by the Germanic peoples. the Romans lost political cohesion. There was a lot of infighting and king-making. The leadership of this period was bad.
Who where the roman leaders?
During the period of the monarchy (753-509 B.C.) the rulers were the kings. During the period of the Republic (509-27 B.C.) the consuls were the two annually elected heads of the Republic. During the period of rule by emperors (27 B.C.-509 A.D.) the rules were the emperors.
