>destroys any chance of a perfect Triarchy, condemning the Imperium to an awful Tetrarchy and its final Diarchy (WRE / HRE vs ERE)>destroys Roman religion by replacing Jupiter with El-Gabal 2.0, allowing to be more destroyed by Constantinus >0 improvement in the "reunified" Imperium>considered the "savior" of the civilization he helped to destroyWhy can't people stop simping for the worst leaders?
>>18719647>>destroys any chance of a perfect TriarchyA Triarchy where all three involved considered each other as illegitimate usurpers of their rightful place as sole Roman Emperor? The continued existence of any state other than their own was unacceptable for any party. The Gallic leadership was happy to negotiate and give up their claim in exchange for peace and a universal pardon, which everybody was happy with. The Palmyrene's were not in the mood to negotiate, and their leadership was not Roman, seeing less reason or ability to actually do so anyway. Much of their forces were still Roman and backed Aurelian when he came East. >>destroys Roman religion by replacing Jupiter with El-Gabal 2.0The cult of Sol Invictus was a military cult that did not have the same origins as Helios or the Near Eastern cults, although they were connected in the minds of Romans. But his attempt at creating a new 'patron' god failed, elite pagans as a whole were moving towards Neo-Platonism and other forms of religious practice, even as a State Cult, Sol Invictus failed, it had a gradual rise over the 3rd century and a meteoric one with Aurelian, than a meteoric fall after him. Diocletian and the Tetrarchs didn't care for Sol Invictus at all and the cult was maintained because it was not disagreeable enough to Diocletian's traditionalist sensibilities. >Why can't people stop simping for the worst leaders?He wasn't a terrible leader. He was an effective military and diplomatic ruler, he was a failed reformer, but he did recognise the problems as existing, he just did too little to actually address any of them and when he did they failed. Serious reform wouldn't occur until Diocletian refashioned every aspect of the Roman state.
>>18719647is this the based dude who stitched the empire back together? his balls arent slurped enough if you ask me.
>>18720080He’s like the only emperor people suck off
It's more of an Aurelian-epiphany if you ask meLet's address your ill-advised criticism in detail>destroys any chance of a perfect Triarchy, condemning the Imperium to an awful Tetrarchy and its final Diarchy (WRE / HRE vs ERE) Sol Invictus has no equals. And the "rivals" Aurelian crushed were not worthy rulers in any shape or form>destroys Roman religion by replacing Jupiter with El-Gabal 2.0, allowing to be more destroyed by Constantinus Wrong. Sol is an Aryan Deity, he has nothing to do with syriac cults >0 improvement in the "reunified" ImperiumBiggest lie. In 5 years he improved it more than any other emperor would have done in 50. >considered the "savior" of the civilization he helped to destroyTwo lies. Senatorial sources tried to downplay his achievements. There were a few equal to Aurelian. Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, Augustus, Majorian, etc. There were none better
>>18720765Wrong
>>18720781What did titus even do aside from sacking jerusalem on the order of his father and providing relief during disasters
>>18719647Why are you LARPing as a Roman and faux Latinizing your speech?
>>18722049He was the nicest guy to ever rule the empire. Like genuinely a good-hearted fellow
>>18722052Op is a donkey who doesn't even know what faux-Latin is. Look at how he types. And the fact that he talks shit about both Aurelian and based Constantius is further proof
>>18722079OP said “Constantinus”, i.e. Constantine
>>18722093I stand corrected. I don't hate Constantine but I indirectly blame him for giving Aurelian an undeserved bad reputation.
>>18720781Augustus was better m8.
>>18722210Unfair comparison. Aurelian's rule was cut short by a senatorial conspiracy
>>18722073It was just a narrative contrast, titus died very fast and his reign was basically only remembered for helping after vesuvius. Then the senate who loathed domitian used titus as a foil to exaggerate how evil domitian was.
>>18722281I think they were right about Titus but they definitely lied about Domitian
>Aurelianus>Constantinus
>>18719647>WRE/HRE vs EREThe HRE is “Roman” only because the Church said so. Compare this with the ERE/Byzantine Empire, who obtained the imperial insignia of the fallen WRE from Odoacer, and at least at its start had retained the Senate and other Roman institutions. You’ve been misled by a centuries-long medieval papist project to retain Roman identity as centred in the hands of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church alone instead of the actual descendants of the Empire, the ERE, which was purposely renamed as “Byzantine Empire” for this reason by western historians of the time.It does set up a funny precedent in that should the world be decimated by some apocalypse, the surviving papal institution could reinstitute a surviving state in the world as the “Roman Empire”. This would be laughed at today, but in a post-apocalyptic scenario is quite likely. Which only shows how ridiculous the HRE was, being “neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire” as Voltaire eloquently put it. Accept the HRE’s claim to Roman identity and you have to accept both the Ottoman Empire’s and Russian Empire’s claims of being the true inheritors of the Roman Empire. At least the Ottomans had some Roman vestiges…
>>18722370There remained a Roman senate in Rome overseen by the Papacy until it was destroyed in 1870 by the dissolution of the Papal States. Not that I disagree with you, just a fun fact>Accept the HRE’s claim to Roman identity and you have to accept both the Ottoman Empire’s and Russian Empire’s claims of being the true inheritors of the Roman EmpireThis reasoning I don't understand
>>18719647it just do that way
