>Conquered bunch of half naked barbars >Use bounty from

He's literally one of the five good emperors.

If you know anything about Roman history, you should know who they are and why they are considered good.

If you don't, just end your own life, catamite.

>>2366824
Of course, I know the five good emperors, I'm just wondering why he's not popular compared to other emperors

>>2366845
he's the most celebrated ruler of all time moron. trajan's record in the history books is two millennia of constant historian dicksucking and it has never changed.

Personally I think Aurelian doesn't get enough credit if anything. Pretty much all the emperors after Hadrian and before Diocletian are just skimmed over or labeled incompetent. While he was assassinated rather quickly, what he did in life was crucial to the empires survival. He repelled serious barbarian invasions and helped put an end to the crisis of the 3rd century.

>>2366806
Genocided Dacians.

>>2366806
His expansionism was retarded. He completely missed the point of the Roman Empire having defensible frontiers. Mesopotamia was a liability and abandoned within weeks of his death for being impossible to defend, and Dacia only managed to pay its way with its gold output while being an indefensible salient beyond the Danube. Trajan just took what others had done, trashed some enemies and overextended the Empire, dying a pussy death. Hadrian was a far great emperor.

>>2366806
>over extends the empire and runs into troubles
>Imperialistic historians wank over him because 'm-muh map colouring'.

Hadrian was better, imo.

>>2366902
>most celebrated ruler of all time
That's a stretch. I'd say Augustus would be more venerated

>>2367610
I'd still have to go Trajan personally, but this dude is right, overextending borders isn't a terribly great use of resources.
Plus Trajan is definitely one of the most venerated emperor's, rightly so in my opinion.