One of the 'better' emperors in Roman history?

by jlenders

In the attached webpage, it is claimed that Aurelius was one of the "good" emperors. My questions are:

  • Is this a contested thought?
  • Compared to other emperors at the time, would it be fair to say he was at least a cut above Nero?! Haha.

Edit: HERE, is the link! My apologies everyone! http://followinghadrian.com/2013/04/26/felix-dies-natalis-marce-aureli-2/

Nesquika

There is no attached webpage, but I think I can answer your question anyways.

Marcus Aurelius was one of the emperors referred to as "the five good emperors." Their reigns were consecutive, 96-180 AD, with Aurelius' being the last. Each of the five chose and adopted their heirs thus ensuring the Roman Empire would be in the hands of experienced and capable men. This period was known for prosperity, stability, and expansion. As for "good" or "bad" on a moral level, that is a different matter. Aurelius was likely more altruistic and was definitely a better leader than many emperors such as Caligula or Nero. Aurelius' son Commodus succeeded his father and the Roman empire quickly declined. The period of "the five good emperors" was over.

Following his death, his son Commodus