Rashidun Caliphs vs 5 Good Emperors

Mohammed_(top,_veiled)_and_the_first_four_Caliphs._From_the_Subhat_al-Akhbar._Original_in_the_Austrian_National_Library_(Österreichische_Nationalbibliothek)_in_Vienna.jpg



Both sets of absolutist rulers are unique in history for the sense of benevolencey and justice they instilled during their reign. Both sets also advanced the empires they governed in extremely successful ways domestically and internationally.

So with that in mind, which set is more impressive in terms of they collectively achieved over the period each set ruled?
 
Last edited:
Err I dont think murdering lots of zororastrtians curbing an entire religion forcing people into dhimmi status and killing is very humane. I wonder how those Zororastrians and copts felt during the conquests of their r lands? .

The Jews still damn the memory of Hadrian, and I do believe that kind, fair, Marcus Aurelius was not exactly easy on the Christians.
 
The Jews still damn the memory of Hadrian, and I do believe that kind, fair, Marcus Aurelius was not exactly easy on the Christians.

ACCIDENTLY deleted post trying to edit thinking it was not a good post but I am not saying the five emperors were humane either. ALL I am saying is that calliing rulers of tha r time as fair just and humane is innacurate and all had their faults including the five good emperors. To their foes I doubt they were good.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The Roman 5 Good Emperors instilled a period of peace and relative prosperity but they acquired only a little bit of new land and did not alter the situation of things tremendously but rather safeguarded what others had built.

The Rashidun Caliphs conquered much of the known world, along with taking a new religion and expanding it quicker than anything in history up until the Spanish conquest of the New World, all while governing an empire relatively well and doing so as an ethnic minority stretched farther than anyone up until the Mongols. They were probably better.
 

trurle

Banned
Better is worse in long term.:p
Roman succession of "5 good emperors" prevented Roman society from developing methods against high-level corruption. The terrible corruption during subsequent Commodus reign has spiralled out of control and contributed much to the "Crisis of the Third Century".
And Rashidun Caliphs reign quality has contributed to the severity of the "First Fitna" civil war. Fortunately, Arabs did not developed a habit to buy the Caliph position, resorting instead to arbitration. May be they learned from Roman failures the importance of the proper jurisprudence (or simply justice). So crisis was over pretty quickly.
 
Better is worse in long term.:p
Roman succession of "5 good emperors" prevented Roman society from developing methods against high-level corruption. The terrible corruption during subsequent Commodus reign has spiralled out of control and contributed much to the "Crisis of the Third Century".

I'm not entirely sure I find that a compelling argument.
 
I don't know guys, I'm sorta now leaning towards the 5 Good Emperors over the Rashidun Caliphs

It's like this.

Your a doctor and you have two patients. one is really skinny but wants to gain weight and other is really fat and just wants to stay alive but also remain fat.

The skinny guy you can advise to eat more, maybe staying away from certain junk food, but basically just eat a lot.

The fat guy however, you have be far more grainular and thoughtful with your approach. Carefully picking specific foods for him to eat as well aas the amounts, making sure he doesn't lose weight but also doesn't grow so large as to die.

The latter clearly is the Roman Empire at the time and thus, far harder to manage.
 
There's no real comparison because the circumstances were so different. The best I can offer is that, had they been born much later and further to the East, Trajan and Marcus Aurelius had qualities that would have made them successful seventh-century Caliphs.

Just as with the emperors, it's slightly simplistic to view the Rashidun Caliphate as a perfect golden age. The first two Rashidun Caliphs were outstandingly successful in all their endeavors, but the other two's records were mixed. For all their success, none were universally popular at the time (3 of the 4 died by violence).
 
There's no real comparison because the circumstances were so different. The best I can offer is that, had they been born much later and further to the East, Trajan and Marcus Aurelius had qualities that would have made them successful seventh-century Caliphs.

Just as with the emperors, it's slightly simplistic to view the Rashidun Caliphate as a perfect golden age. The first two Rashidun Caliphs were outstandingly successful in all their endeavors, but the other two's records were mixed. For all their success, none were universally popular at the time (3 of the 4 died by violence).

Agreed. For all his fame, Ali ibn Talib was not successful as Caliph and if it wasn't for arbitration at Siffin would've been defeated by Muawiyah, Khawarij or not.
 
Top