So I’ve always been curious about Roman emperors, right? Like when people argue about who was the greatest, I wondered if there’s any actual consensus. This week I decided to dig into expert opinions instead of just random internet fights.
Starting the hunt
First I grabbed all the history books from my shelf – those thick ones collecting dust. Flipped through Gibbon’s Decline and Fall first, man those old-timey sentences hurt my brain. Then pulled up some academic articles online late at night when my coffee hadn’t worn off.
What I noticed right away:
- Modern historians trash-talk ancient sources HARD
- Every scholar’s got personal favorites like sports teams
- Nobody agrees on what “greatest” even means
The messy middle part
Kept bouncing between Augustus and Marcus Aurelius debates for hours. Watched some university lectures on YouTube while cooking dinner. Burned my pasta because I was too busy comparing notes about Hadrian’s Wall defenses versus Trajan’s conquests.
Even asked my history-major niece at Sunday dinner. She rolled her eyes saying “it’s all imperialist propaganda anyway” which… fair point honestly. But I wanted concrete answers!
My basement research table
Made this dumb chart spreading papers across my workbench. Highlighters everywhere. Sticky notes on the wall showing emperor timelines. My dog chewed the corner of my Diocletian printout – guess he prefers Constantine.
Found the big splits:
- Military guys obsess over Trajan expanding borders
- Policy nerds stan Augustus’ administrative reforms
- Philosophers keep hyping Marcus Aurelius’ journals
Where I landed
Turns out historians are just like us fans – they fight constantly! The British Museum dude likes Hadrian for stability while some Oxford professor writes love letters to Justinian. My original question? Total trap.
Finished by calling my dad – old war history buff. He chuckled: “Kid, depends if you’re the guy conquering or the guy getting conquered.” Probably the wisest take I heard all week.
