(4) BEST: HADRIAN –

NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(117 – 138 AD: 20 YEARS 10 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

The definitive Roman emperor, exceeded as such only by my top two entries.

That’s notable in that he did not add any conquests to the empire, but instead withdrew from the conquests of his predecessor, particularly in Mesopotamia but to some extent in Dacia as well. Although the Romans themselves tended to esteem expansionism, Hadrian focused on the consolidation of the empire – “Hadrian preferred to invest in the development of stable, defensible borders and the unification of the empire’s disparate peoples”.

It is hard not to see that as the correct focus, as Hadrian presided over an empire at its peak strength and stability, without any adversary of real substance let alone rival or threat to it. Otherwise, it might have become overstretched (or more so) – and it’s possible that even his predecessor who had conquered Mesopotamia (from Persia) “may have thought his gains in Mesopotamia indefensible and abandoned them shortly before his death”.

As such, unlike other emperors in this top ten Hadrian did not even have to engage in any robust military action in defense of the empire – with one notable exception where he was very robust indeed with the one substantial adversary that revolted against the empire during his reign, which we’ll get to shortly.

However, Hadrian didn’t just sit on the empire’s laurels. He “also developed permanent fortifications and military posts along the empire’s border (limites, sl. limes) to support his policy of stability, peace and preparedness”, including the wall in Britain that famously bore his name. “Hadrian’s policy was peace through strength”, emphasised by discipline – “troops practised intensive, regular drill routines” and historian Cassius Dio “praised Hadrian’s emphasis on spit and polish as cause for the generally peaceful character of his reign”.

Fortifications weren’t all he built or rebuilt – Hadrian was famed for his building projects throughout the empire. To that end, Hadrian “travelled almost constantly throughout the empire” and “was to spend more than half his reign outside Italy”.

Hadrian was notoriously fond of Greece and the Greeks – the Historia Augusta opined he may have been “a little too much Greek” – and fond of a Greek in particular, the youth Antinous.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that but I would say that Hadrian deifying Antinous after the latter’s untimely death as a gay god was a step too far. Some men will literally apotheosize their dead catamite instead going to therapy.

The other notorious aspect of Hadrian’s regime was wiping Jerusalem and Judaea off the map in response to the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt. The Caledonian chieftain Calgacus as quoted (or concocted) by Tacitus had seen nothing yet when he said the Romans make a desert and call it peace – Hadrian showed how it was really done.

Hadrian was also initiated into in the Greek Eleusinian Mysteries – which I’d like to think of as the classical equivalent of the Illuminati, or perhaps just the actual Illuminati as who knows how far back that secret society and their conspiracies go…?

 

EMPIRE BASER:

 

Arguably the most based of them all.

 

MAXIMUS:

 

I don’t think he claimed any – putting down revolts isn’t quite the same thing

 

DEIFICATION:

 

O yes – although his successor had to insist on it to the Senate

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yes – as another one of the five good chad emperors, aptly depicted in my feature image with the Wall from the Game of Thrones TV series – itself influenced by Hadrian’s eponymous wall in Britain.

I particularly like Dovahhatty’s joke about Hadrian being infra-gay – at the opposite end of the spectrum to Elagabalus being ultra-gay. Indeed, as I understand it, that joke reflects the dichotomy the Romans themselves drew for sexuality – between the active, dominant or masculine role and the passive, submissive or feminine role. Or to put it bluntly, between the giving and receiving roles. Men could engage in the former “without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status” – hence infra-gay rather than ultra-gay – although deifying your dead ultra-gay lover was probably pushing the boundaries of Roman social acceptability.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)