War and the Five Good Emperors

Niccolò Machiavelli coined the term the "Five Good Emperors."  The term speaks more to politics of the early 16th century than it does to the history of the Roman empire toward the Second Century after Christ.  The policies of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius differed little from the policies of the Flavians or the more stable Julio-Claudians.

Historians both modern and ancient are kind to six of the seven Kings of Rome.  The same can be said of the Emperors of this period.  Domitian, the villain in Suetonius' narratives was hostile to the Senate.  Emperors who borrowed extensively and paid back equestrians with devalued coin did so at the expense of the common people.

The succession of these emperors was one of adoption - a kind of election practiced by the old Royal period and yet in keeping with the values of the Roman Republic that honors would be due to the "best man."

They were men of virtue not men of caprice, indolence.  Polybius writes of such men:

"when the leading and most powerful man among the people always throws the weight of his authority on the side of the notions on such matters which generally prevail, and when in the opinion of his subjects he apportions rewards and penalties according to desert, they yield obedience to him no longer because they fear his force, but rather because their judgement approves him; and they join in maintaining his rule even if he is quite enfeebled by age, defending him with one consent and battling against those who conspire to overthrow his rule. 12 Thus by insensible degrees the monarch becomes a king, ferocity and force having yielded the supremacy to reason."

Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius tried in their own way to rule the empire much the same way the six kings of Rome did.  But just as the Romans of the regal period met with Tarquin the Proud, the Romans of the late 2nd century dealt with Commodus.  This Commodus, like Caligula and Nero embodied the warning Polybius wrote about several centuries before their birth:

"In old times, then, those who had once been chosen to the royal office continued to hold it until they grew old, fortifying and enclosing fine strongholds with walls and acquiring lands, in the one case for the sake of the security of their subjects and in the other to provide them with abundance of the necessities of life. 5 And while pursuing these aims, they were exempt from all vituperation or jealousy, as neither in their dress nor in their food did they make any great distinction, they lived very much like everyone else, not keeping apart from the people. 6 But when they received the office by hereditary succession and found their safety now provided for, and more than sufficient provision of food, 7 they gave way to their appetites owing to this superabundance, and came to think that the rulers must be distinguished from their subjects by a peculiar dress, that there should be a peculiar luxury and variety in the dressing and serving of their viands, and that they should meet with no denial p285in the pursuit of their amours, however lawless. 8 These habits having given rise in the one case to envy and offence and in the other to an outburst of hatred and passionate resentment, the kingship changed into a tyranny; the first steps towards its overthrow were taken by the subjects, and conspiracies began to be formed. 9 These conspiracies were not the work of the worst men, but of the noblest, most high-spirited, and most courageous, because such men are least able to brook the insolence of princes."

The most noble Roman ever to sit on the throne of Rome save Hostilius Tullius must be the provincial is  Marcus Ulpius Trajanus known to history as Trajan.  He conducted the empire as any man of conscience would in civil government and in military expansion.  His ward or adopted son, Hadrian held very different views about the borders of the empire and what can be reasonably done to defend it.  Hadrian adopted a pacifist posture and his successor Antonius Pius emulated Hadrian's policy.  These policies ultimately meant that Marcus Aurelius had to fight these wars on tougher terms that Hadrian and Pius delayed.

The end of imperial expansion didn't come until the reign of Commodus who aped the words that Aristotle warned against:  one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others."

Commodus was the worst Emperor of Western Civilization possibly second to Caligula but ahead of Nero.  The proof of the disaster for Rome in the long run was the Constitutional flaw that allowed an idiot like him to sit on the throne of Rome.