In the first volume of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in 1776, Edward
Gibbon famously proclaimed: “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.”
Although few modern historians would say anything quite so sententious, the period Gibbon describes
– from 98 to 180 AD – is generally considered the apogee of the Roman Empire.
It coincided with the reigns of the so-called “Five Good Emperors.”
Nerva, the first, restored balance to the government after the tyranny of Domitian.
Trajan, the second, waged a series of wars that pushed the empire’s frontiers to their
greatest extent.
Hadrian, the third, traveled tirelessly through the provinces, dispensing justice and instituting
reforms.
Antoninus Pius, the fourth, presided over a generation of virtually uninterrupted peace.
Marcus Aurelius, the last, applied the principles of Stoic philosophy to the problems of ruling
a world-empire.
All but the last of these men adopted his successor; and each seems to have chosen his
heir well.
Though far from perfect – Hadrian, for example, had a nasty habit of executing senators – the
Five Good Emperors seem, as a group, to have been effective and responsible rulers.
Under their stewardship, the Pax Romana extended from Scotland to Sudan, Roman coins circulated
in Sweden and Sri Lanka, and Roman merchants reached China.
Although conditions didn’t change profoundly for the subsistence farmers who made up the
bulk of the empire’s population, new goods, such as mass-produced pottery and roof tiles,
made life a bit easier in many places.
So did a highly effective trade network, which blunted the impacts of local famines.
The real beneficiaries of the Roman peace, however, were members of the elite.
Both at Rome and in the provinces, aristocrats had never been wealthier.
Men like Herodes Atticus – the orator and senator who divided his time between vast
estates in Greece and Italy – dominated the imperial bureaucracy, governing provinces
and leading legions before retiring to the manicured gardens of their townhomes and villas.
With war banished to distant frontiers, the cities of the empire thrived as never before.
Most of the theaters, forums, fountains, and baths that dominate Roman ruins from Spain
to Syria were built under the Five Good Emperors.
At Ephesus, for example, virtually every structure along the monumental main streets was built
or reconstructed in this era.
So were the spectacular plazas of Gerasa in Jordan
The planned city of Timgad in Algeria The great pool of the Roman baths in Bath,
England And ambitious building projects in every other
part of the Roman world.
Perhaps the most emblematic of these is Hadrian’s Villa in Tivoli – a sprawling complex, twice
the size of the city of Pompeii, where replicas of monuments and places Hadrian had visited
stood among manicured groves and sparkling pools.
Although the reign of Marcus Aurelius witnessed a catastrophic plague and a series of brutal
wars, the golden age – according to Cassius Dio – only ended when Marcus died and was
succeeded by his unstable son Commodus.
Despite a period of stability under the Severan Dynasty and a golden autumn in the mid-fourth
century, the Roman Empire would never again be as peaceful or prosperous as it had been
under the Five Good Emperors.
That fact begs two questions.
First, what – from the perspective of our ancient sources – made an emperor “good”?
And second, how much did the emperor’s quality really matter for the success of the Roman
Empire?
We’ll tackle these after a brief word about this video’s sponsor.
Despite the basic resilience of the Roman economy, prosperity was never widespread.
This is a problem we still face today, when the wealthiest 1% of American families control
more than a third of the nation’s wealth.
Many of those outside the fortunate 1% are feeling the crunch.
In fact, according to one recent survey, over half of Americans making six figures are living
paycheck to paycheck.
The financial horizon is cloudy, and many professional investors anticipate limited
growth on the stock market in the coming year.
Knowing this, billionaires are pouring hundreds of millions into low-correlation assets, whose
value will continue to climb even if markets flatline.
One of these low-correlation assets appreciated a stunning 29% at auction last year.
That asset is fine art.
Masterworks allows you to invest in multi-million-dollar contemporary paintings without breaking the
bank.
They’ve built a track record of 11 exits, all of them profitable.
It’s no wonder that Masterworks has seen over 660,000 members try to gain access and
there is a waitlist.
But through toldinstone, anyone can get VIP access to Masterworks’ latest offerings.
Just check the description below.
Returning to our topic: in the eyes of ancient authors, “good” emperors were rulers who
played by the political rules established by Augustus and sanctioned by his successors.
They waged successful wars against Rome’s enemies, refrained from levying onerous new
taxes, beautified the city of Rome – or at least kept the plebs from starving – and,
most important of all, treated the elite (as embodied by the Senate) with respect.
This last criterion is hardly surprising, since Roman historians were, almost without
exception, members of the elite – and often of the Senate – themselves.
They tended to assume that what was good for the Senate was good for the empire as a whole.
Though not necessarily misleading – rulers who worked well with their officials, after
all, tended to be effective administrators – an emperor who never antagonized the Senate
was not necessarily a great leader.
That brings us to the larger question: how much did the quality of an emperor really
matter for the success of the Roman Empire as a whole?
Under normal circumstances, a Roman emperor’s primary role was to receive a steady stream
of visitors, delegations, and petitions from his subjects.
Although his letters were answered by advisors and secretaries, the emperor himself spent
– or was supposed to spend – most of his time in court, personally passing judgment
and issuing edicts.
An emperor’s decisions mattered – indeed, were capable of changing the course of history.
The imperial system had been established, after all, by the brilliant political maneuvering
of Augustus, and the idiosyncrasies of various emperors motivated wars of conquest, sparked
provincial revolts, changed the face of the capital, and shaped the laws.
Yet decisive though imperial leadership might be, especially in times of crisis, the machinery
of government could function perfectly well under incompetent rulers: neither Caligula
nor Nero, for example, caused the basic health of the empire any obvious distress.
It could be argued, in fact, that the most important thing an emperor did was simply
exist, guaranteeing the stability of the state by the fact of his acknowledged legitimacy.
How good, then, were the Five Good Emperors?
Or to put that a different way, was the Roman Empire so successful during the second century
because of its leaders or in spite of them?
Though that’s not a question that can answered succinctly – if it can be answered at all
– a few factors are worth pointing out.
The Second Century appears to have coincided with the so-called Roman warm period, a regional
climatic anomaly that brought exceptionally benign weather to the Mediterranean Basin.
The empire managed to avoid major pandemics until the Antonine Plague.
Thanks to new conquests and newly-productive mines, the precious metals on which the imperial
economy depended were in ample supply.
The Parthian Empire along the eastern frontier was weak, and the Germanic tribes to the north
were disorganized.
Finally, only the last of the Five Good Emperors had a natural son, a fact that compelled the
rest to the happy expedient of adopting competent successors with the active cooperation of
the Senate.
All of the Five Good Emperors were competent.
At least two have a fair claim to be called great.
But if they were good, they were also lucky.
If you’re interested in more toldinstone content (including my podcast), check out
my channel Toldinstone Footnotes.
I also have a channel called Scenic Routes to the Past, which is dedicated to historically-themed
travel.
You'll find both channels linked in the description.
Please consider joining other viewers in supporting toldinstone on Patreon.
You might also enjoy my book, Naked Statues, Fat Gladiators, and War Elephants.
Thanks for watching.