Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(11) CONSTANTIUS II –
CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE)
(337 – 361 AD: 24 YEARS 1 MONTH 25 DAYS)

And now we come to some special mention matched pairings, in which one emperor is similar to or echoed by another emperor in the Crisis of the Third Century. Also special mentions that while good, drop down a tier from top-tier to high-tier – often coinciding with a mixed or even negative reputation.

For Constantius II, I guess there was something to the name – there were three emperors with the name and they were all pretty decent. Granted, Constantius II wasn’t as good as the other two, which included his namesake grandfather and first Constantius. For that matter he wasn’t as good as his father Constantine the Great, although he was the only one of Constantine’s three sons worth a damn as emperor.

Constantius II has a mixed reputation but deserves his place among the good emperors for holding the empire together for almost two and a half decades, mostly in its eastern provinces but also the whole empire for about a third of his reign – despite his brothers fighting each other, usurpers, civil war, and Germanic barbarian tribes, all while waging war with the Persian Sassanid empire for most of his reign.

He and his brothers had succeeded their father as emperor, with Constantius reigning over the eastern third of the empire while his brothers Constantine II and Constans reigned over the western and middle thirds respectively. Constantius had played the leading role in doing the dirty work for their uncontested succession – the massacre of the princes, eliminating the other adult male members of the family as rivals to that succession.

His attention as eastern emperor was preoccupied foremost with constant warfare with the Persian Sassanids rather than the shenanigans of his brothers – Constantine II invaded Italy to usurp Constans but was defeated by Constans’s troops and killed instead, leaving only the two brothers maintaining an uneasy peace with each other until Constans was successfully usurped by the general Magnentius.

Constantius then fought one of Rome’s costliest civil wars, the civil war of 350-353 AD against Magnentius, defeating him at the decisive battle of Mursa Major in 351 AD, albeit the war dragged on until the final battle of Mons Seleucis in 353 AD. The battle of Mursa was one of the bloodiest battles in Roman history, bearing in mind that as a civil war the Romans lost soldiers on both sides. Contemporary writers lamented its losses as a disaster for the empire – with Eutropius opining those losses could have won triumphs from foreign wars and brought peace, while Zosimus believed they left the army so weakened that it could not counter barbarian incursions. Even modern academics have labelled the battle a pyrrhic victory for Constantius.

While perhaps an apt observation for civil war later that century and battles such as the Battle of Frigidus in 394 AD, it does seem overstated for Constantius – given that he successfully defeated the Alamanni at the Rhine frontier and the Quadi and Sarmatians across the Danube before having to turn his attention back to the east against a renewed Sassanid Persian threat. And for that matter, his junior emperor Julian was also able not only to defend the western empire but campaign across the Rhine, while Valentinian was able to robustly defend and campaign across the Rhine and Danube frontiers in his reign from 363 to 374 AD.

This negative observation of the civil war is mirrored by Wikipedia stating that Constantius was “unwilling to accept Magnentius as co-ruler”, an easy observation in hindsight, but it is difficult to see what else Constantius could have done or how his own position could have been secure if he had accepted Magnentius’ usurpation of his brother – and he demonstrated he was willing and able to compromise with usurpers where circumstances permitted, cutting a deal with another usurper Vetrantio (whose usurpation had effectively blocked further usurpation by Magnentius).

Anyway, his victory in the civil war left him sole ruler of the empire, although he appointed junior members of the far flung Constantinian family tree – whom had been children at the time of the massacre of the princes and thus avoided the purge – as junior emperor or caesar. Firstly Constantius Gallus in the eastern empire, who had to be, shall we say, written off, and then Julian in the western empire, who proved far more capable. Indeed, too capable, as civil war loomed between them but was fortunately averted when Constantius became gravely ill, naming Julian as his successor for the whole empire before he died.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

I was pleased to see Dovahhatty did right by Constantius II, the only one of Constantine’s three sons inheriting the empire to be depicted as a chad. (We’ve seen Constantine III depicted as a virgin in my Top 10 Worst Roman Emperors – and Constans will be featured later). He also captured something of the weariness of Constantius II facing the challenges of the reign – as in the screenshot in my featured image. Youtuber Spectrum similarly ranked Constantius II among his ten most underrated emperors.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE SAVER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVIII: Barbarians at the Gates

(10) CONSTANTIUS III –
THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)
(421 AD: 6 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

My fourth and last special mention for an emperor that would have ranked higher but for his short reign – the shortest reign of these four special mentions – although similarly to the other special mentions, part of my top tier ranking for him is comprised by his achievements that saw him rise to the imperial throne.

Along with Marcian, he’s one of the two good emperors that are surprising to find in the Theodosian dynasty, but again like Marcian it’s because he married into it – marrying the sister of Honorius, Galla Placidia (after retrieving her from the Visigoths who had captured her in their sack of Rome in 410).

Essentially, Constantius III was Stilicho II. Not formally in any dynastic sense of course, but between them, they were the two supreme military commanders holding the western empire together under its worst emperor Honorius. However, unlike Stilicho whom Honorius betrayed and had executed, Constantius found favor with Honorius – probably because Honorius needed someone to save his empire after stabbing Stilicho in the back, which led to the sack of Rome by the Visigoths.

Ultimately that favor extended to Honorius making Constantius his co-emperor, hence the marriage to his sister. Alas, it was only for a few months before Constantius died from illness – one suspects that but for this untimely death, Constantius may well have forestalled the collapse of the western empire, at least for a longer period of time.

As for the achievements that saw him rise to co-emperor, Constantius was appointed in place of Stilicho as magister militum in 411, suppressing the revolt of the usurper Constantine III in that same year. He “then went on to lead campaigns against various barbarian groups in Hispania and Gaul, recovering much of both for the Western Roman Empire” – most notably against the Visigoths, forcing them into submission as foederati in agreed territory after their sack of Rome and waging war on Rome’s behalf against the Vandals and other hostile barbarians within the empire.

Thereafter the Visigoths were the most loyal of Rome’s new Germanic allies within the empire, certainly when it came to defending the empire against the Huns – “That Visigothic settlement proved paramount to Europe’s future as had it not been for the Visigothic warriors who fought side by side with the Roman troops under general Flavius Aetius, it is perhaps possible that Attila would have seized control of Gaul, rather than the Romans being able to retain dominance”.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Among the last of the Roman chads…

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE-SAVER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(9) CONSTANTIUS –
TETRARCHY: WESTERN EMPIRE
(305-306 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

Another special mention for an emperor that, while good, might well have ranked higher but for his short reign – and of course being overshadowed by his son Constantine as well as his own achievements prior to becoming emperor. Quick side bar – the name Constantius gets a pretty good run for quality of Roman emperors.

Short reign as augustus or senior emperor in the West that is – prior to that, he was the junior emperor or caesar for over 12 years from 293 AD, one of the members of the Tetrarchy and the only one consistently worth a damn apart from Diocletian.

And his short reign as augustus overlooks not only his successful reign as caesar but also his distinguished military career before that, serving under none other than Aurelian (against the Palmyrene Empire) as well as Aurelian’s successors.

Upon becoming caesar, his first task was to deal with the Carausian Revolt – effectively the secession of Britain and conquest of parts of the coastline of Gaul by the so-called Britannic Empire under the usurper Carausius – which the senior western emperor or augustus Maximian had royally failed to do.

That involved defeating the forces of Carausius in Gaul first, including the Franks that were allied with Carausius, before invading Britain itself and defeating the revolt, where the usurper Carausius had been usurped by his finance officer Allectus (which makes me see the position of chief financial officer in a whole new light).

He then returned to what he did best, both before and during the revolt – pounding Germanic barbarian tribes at the Rhine, particularly the Franks and Alamanni.

Upon his accession as augustus, Constantius replayed his greatest hits and returned to Britain, where he was joined by his son Constantine, campaigned against the Picts in the north and died of natural causes in York, recommending his son Constantine to his legions as his imperial heir.

Interestingly, because of the British connection, he assumed a role in that misty legendary British history before King Arthur.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

An accurate depiction as chad – not so sure about the sunglasses and Monster energy drink in the screenshot image.

RANKING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE SAVER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Pax Romana XI

(7) TITUS –
FLAVIAN DYNASTY
(79 – 81 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS 20 DAYS)

And we come now to special mentions for emperors that, while good, might well have ranked higher but for the brevity of their reign – also typically in combination with their most outstanding achievements actually being prior to their accession to emperor as the capstone of those achievements.

Titus is perhaps the classic example of an emperor who might well have ranked in the top ten but for his brief reign, although in his case his accession to the throne was as the first emperor to come to the throne after his own biological father, Vespasian, putting the dynasty into the Flavian dynasty.

He did build on the achievements of Vespasian – literally building in the case of completing the Colosseum, the achievement for which he is best known as emperor.

Also figuratively, coinciding with his most outstanding achievement being prior to his imperial accession – winning renown as a military commander by finishing Vespasian’s campaign in the First Jewish War through to decisive victory (after Vespasian had left to pursue his own imperial claim in the Year of the Four Emperors).

Titus besieged and captured Jerusalem, ending the Jewish rebellion, for which he received a triumph (with his father and brother) commemorated by the famous Arch of Titus still standing today. Not to mention all the spoils of war in gold and silver from the sacked and destroyed Temple in Jerusalem.

Interestingly, he gained notoriety during the reign of his father while serving as prefect of the Praetorian Guard and for his relationship with the Jewish queen Berenice, more booty from the war (heh). However, he ruled to great acclaim from contemporaries – not least, like his father before him (and unlike his younger brother Domitian after him), from the Senate, no doubt aided by him, ah, not killing any Senators during his reign, with one of his first imperial acts calling an end to trials (and executions) for treason.

He also responded generously to two natural disasters during his reign – the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and another great fire in Rome. His reign also saw yet another rebellion by a Nero claimant pop up and be put down – man, that guy really was the Antichrist, constantly bubbling up in different forms.

He died from fever or illness and was succeeded by his brother Domitian.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yes – the Flavian dynasty as one of the two chad dynasties (with the other as the five chad emperors).

RANKING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: The Fall of Rome

(6) MARCIAN –
THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)
(450-457 AD: 6 YEARS 5 MONTHS 2 DAYS)

Sadly overlooked and underrated among Roman emperors – even Dovahhatty’s Unbiased History of Rome portrays him essentially as a model of supine inactivity, not much more than a visual pun on his name depicting him as the cartoon Marvin the Martian (from Looney Tunes).

That is, overlooked and underrated except among sources from the eastern Roman empire, who apparently even compared him to their founding figure Constantine – with his reign often looked back on as a golden age and the people of Constantinople shouting “Reign like Marcian!” at the accession of subsequent emperors.

I was surprised looking him up to find this hidden gem of an emperor and to be fair, the eastern Roman empire sources call it pretty well – on the threshold of arguably swapping him into the top ten. You could (and I will) even argue for Marcian as an empire saver – that he was not only a large part of why the eastern empire endured, but the western empire as well, albeit the latter only from the more immediate threat of the Huns as it was doomed in the longer term.

Part of the surprise was that such an emperor could be found in that worst of imperial dynasties (prior to 476 at least), the Theodosian dynasty, but of course the answer is that, like another emperor we’ll come to shortly, he married into it – marrying Pulcheria, the sister of his predecessor Theodosius II. He didn’t consummate the marriage as she maintained her vow of virginity she had made in her youth – it was purely an arranged marriage for dynastic legitimacy.

That leads on to the next part of the surprise – that his accession to the throne was in very inauspicious circumstances to expect a good emperor. In a nutshell, he was effectively intended as a pawn by the real power behind the throne in the eastern Roman empire, its Germanic supreme military commander Aspar. Indeed, you could argue for Aspar playing a similar role to Ricimer and the other Germanic military leaders who controlled the western empire at the same time, except the eastern empire was robust enough to fight back and end the Germanic domination of their empire (albeit under Marcian’s successor).

Theodosius II – who was a model of supine inactivity, largely sleepwalking as emperor of the eastern empire as the western empire crumbled – had no sons nor had designated a successor, so the eastern empire faced its first succession crisis in sixty years. Aspar arranged Marcian’s accession to the throne and marriage to Pulcheria to seal the deal, Marcian serving and having served as domesticus or personal assistant to Aspar and Aspar’s father in the army. Marcian was also on the eve of his sixties, indeed mostly reigning in his sixties (hence perhaps why he didn’t rock the boat on Pulcheria’s vow of virginity).

Fortunately, there seem to have been other influences at play on Marcian as well as Aspar – Flavius Zeno and the strongminded Pucheria herself, as well as other advisors. Also, the interests of Aspar and his Germanic faction aligned with that of the eastern empire when it came to opposing the empire’s two greatest threats, the Huns and the Sassanid Persians.

Whatever the case, Marcian shook off the empire’s supine inactivity under his predecessor Theodosius II. In a ballsy move, he almost immediately revoked all treaties with Attila, ending the payment of ever increasing amounts of gold in tribute at Attila as Theodosius II had done. In an even ballsier move, he launched an expedition across the Danube, defeating the Huns in the very heartland (and breadbasket) of their empire in the Great Hungarian Plain, while Attila was raiding the western empire in Italy.

Although Attila’s ultimate motives remain unknown and there were other factors at play (notably famine and plague in Italy), these eastern Roman actions probably played a decisive role in the western empire and its envoy to Attila, Pope Leo I, persuading (or paying) Attila to withdraw from Italy.

It was a calculated gamble by Marcian and Aspar. Of course, their actions risked the renewed wrath of Attila – “after returning to the Great Hungarian Plain, he threatened to invade the Eastern Empire the following spring and conquer it entirely”. They ignored his threats – reasoning that “he could not be permanently deterred even by tons of gold” and the gold was better spent on building up their military strength rather than appeasing threats. Also, they reasoned that “the rich Asian and African provinces, which were protected behind Constantinople, were secure enough to allow the Eastern Empire to retake any European provinces it might lose”.

As it turned out, Marcian got lucky, with Attila dying in 453 and the Hunnic empire rapidly falling apart after his death. Marcian also got lucky in general – “some later scholars attribute his success not just to his skill, but also to a large degree of luck. Not only had he been fortunate enough to have Pulcheria to legitimize his rule, but for much of it the two greatest external threats to Rome, the Sassanian Empire and the Huns, were absorbed with their own internal problems. Further, no natural disasters or plagues occurred during his reign”. But then, the Romans saw luck or divine fortune as one of the marks of a good emperor, with the Senate invoking the fortune of Augustus for new emperors – “May you be luckier than Augustus and greater than Trajan”.

“Marcian secured the Eastern Empire both politically and financially, set an orthodox religious line that future emperors would follow, and stabilized the capital city politically”. He took advantage of the fragmentation of the Hunnic empire or confederation to settle Germanic tribes, notably the Ostrogoths, within the empire as foederati, and play barbarian tribes off against each other – imperial policies with mixed results to be sure but which that Marcian did successfully, with beneficial results for the eastern empire. Beyond that, he had a relatively peaceful reign, although he did win some minor campaigns against Saracens in Syria and Blemmyes in Egypt.

Even better, on his death he left the treasury with a surplus, reversing its near bankruptcy in which it had been when he acceded to the throne – in large part by cutting expenditure, notably those exorbitant tributes (and avoiding large-scale wars).

He didn’t do much to reverse the decline of the western Roman empire – other than of course having effectively saved it from the Huns during Attila’s invasion of Italy – but there was little he could do for that basketcase. He didn’t initially take action against the Vandals after their sack of Rome, but did secure release of the female imperial hostages taken by them and was planning an invasion of Vandal territory shortly before his death. It is a pity that his reign did not overlap with that of Majorian – it is tempting to imagine what a team-up between them could have achieved, particularly against the Vandals.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

As I opened, sadly an example where Dovahhatty did not do right.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE-SAVER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XII: The Five Good Emperors

(5) ANTONINUS PIUS –
NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS
(138 – 161 AD: 22 YEARS 7 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

My man Tony Pius, the man who maxed the pax of the Pax Romana – another emperor who could arguably be swapped into the top ten emperors (and more than earned his place among the Five Good Emperors), except perhaps for not really doing much.

In the words of Spectrum, “this guy played the game in easy mode”. Trajan and Hadrian having left him an empire humming along at its peak – “All he had to do was not fck up, and well, he didn’t fck up”.

Dovahhatty had a more generous assessment – “He did absolutely nothing for twenty-three years. Based”. Partly because Dovahhatty then goes on to list achievements or perhaps more precisely events during his reign, including the conquest in Scotland early in his reign to a wall that bore his name, the Antonine Wall.

Personally, I think both understate the achievement of maintaining the empire at peace for over two decades – or indeed, not screwing up, which after all seemed too high a bar for most emperors.

“His reign was the most peaceful in the entire history of the Principate” – which I would hazard to guess makes it the most peaceful in the entire history of the classical empire, given how much less peaceful the Dominate was. If it is to be characterized as inactivity, then it is inactivity from peace and good management requiring no action on his part, as opposed to the more disastrous supine inactivity from cowardice or incompetence we see from bad emperors – looking at you, Theodosian dynasty.

One might compare him to Hadrian with a focus on consolidating the empire, but in another way he was also the anti-Hadrian – whereas Hadrian travelled extensively throughout the empire, Antoninus never left Italy once during his reign. One modern scholar has written “It is almost certain not only that at no time in his life did he ever see, let alone command, a Roman army, but that, throughout the twenty-three years of his reign, he never went within five hundred miles of a legion”.

I tend to agree with scholars (such as Krzysztof Ulanowski) that this reflects his preference for – and achievements in – diplomacy, particularly “being successful in deterrence by diplomatic means”. Antoninus apparently stood off a resurgent Parthian Empire (under Vologasius IV) by writing a letter warning that “encroachment on Roman territory would not be taken lightly” – and that’s all it took for the Parthians to slink away with their tail between their legs.

The reign of Antoninus also saw the influence of the Roman Empire extend to its furthest extent beyond its borders (apart from spooking the Parthians) – he “was the last Roman Emperor recognised by the Indian Kingdoms, especially the Kushan Empire” and a group proclaiming themselves to be an “ambassadorial mission” made the first direct contact between Han China and the Roman Empire.

Otherwise, he was an effective administrator and left behind a treasury in substantial surplus (despite extensive building projects), something no other emperor would do for a long time.

Based, indeed.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

One of the five chad emperors – that quote really sums it up. Based.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(4) DOMITIAN –

FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(81 – 96 AD: 15 YEARS 4 DAYS)

Modern historians have increasingly seen Domitian’s reign as laying the foundation of the golden age that immediately succeeded him (or at least did via a brief interregnum via Nerva).

His reign was distinctive or even unique for its economic success, above all in revaluing the currency, maintaining it through his reign by financial prudence and “rigorous taxation policy”. In his ranking of emperors, Youtuber Spectrum asserts that Domitian “was the only emperor to have actually fixed the problem of inflation, the only one”. I’m not sure that he was as unique in that respect as Spectrum asserts but at very least it was exceedingly rare (literally only one or two others) and he certainly “maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve”.

However, it was more than just the economy that he strengthened, although his economic management might be said to be representative of his prudent management of the empire and its administration as a whole.

“His foreign policy was realistic, rejecting expansionist warfare and negotiating peace” and “the military campaigns undertaken during Domitian’s reign were generally defensive in nature”. His military campaigns might not have been as conclusive or as overwhelmingly victorious as his critics would have preferred – notably against the Dacians, where Trajan finished the job – but he did leave the empire’s borders more secure, with his “most significant military contribution” as the development of the Limes Germanicus to defend the empire along the Rhine.

And his campaigns were, more or less, successful – extending the conquest of Britain into Scotland under his capable general Agricola, wars against the Germanic tribe of the Chatti (conferring upon himself the victory title of Germanicus Maximus), wars against the Dacians and other tribes across the Danube, and suppressing the revolt of governor Saturnius in Germania.

“Domitian is also credited on the easternmost evidence of Roman military presence, the rock inscription near Boyukdash mountain, in present-day Azerbaijan”. The Roman Empire may also have reached its northernmost and westernmost points during his reign – in Scotland (in the campaign by Agricola) and in Ireland (in a possible expedition, also by Agricola).

Otherwise, he was one of the Roman emperors with the largest architectural footprints in Rome with his extensive reconstruction of the city still damaged from disasters preceding his reign – and even the critical Suetonius observed “the imperial bureaucracy never ran more efficiently than under Domitian” with “historically low corruption”. Persecution of religious minorities such as Jews or Christians was minimal, if any, at least as observed by contemporaries although some was subsequently reputed to him.

Yet for all that, in a similar vein to the negative portrayals of Tiberius only even more so, Domitian is often seen as a bad emperor or even one of the worst, echoing senatorial hostility toward him as a ‘cruel tyrant’ through the ages.

So where does the hate for Domitian come from, often expressed in terms of ranking him as one of Rome’s worst and most tyrannical emperors? Why, from the Senate of course, reflecting the mutual antagonism between Domitian and the Senate, hence the latter’s official damnatio memoriae on Domitian after his death by assassination in a conspiracy by court officials.

The Senate hated him and he hated them right back, as he had been in Rome during the Year of the Four Emperors (while his father and brother were campaigning in Judaea) and seen the Senate kowtow to one imperial claimant after another (until his father won the throne as the fourth emperor). There’s an amusing story told of Domitian inviting the foremost senators to a banquet with such a theme of death for his guests – including gravestones in their names – that they feared execution – only to show himself to be trolling them, sending them all home at the end of the banquet.

Of course, that becomes a problem when it’s the senatorial class that wrote the histories.

Fortunately, modern historians have revised or reassessed Domitian as an emperor “whose administration provided the foundation for the Principate of the peaceful 2nd century”, with the policies of his immediate successors differing little from his in reality.

However, while one doesn’t have to agree with the senatorial hostility towards Domitian (and its viewpoint of him as a ‘bad’ emperor), one does have to recognize it, hence his ranking as special mention rather than in the top ten (as Spectrum does – in fifth place no less, over Marcus Aurelius in sixth place, because money trumps philosophy).

Like it or not, dealing with the Senate and senatorial class was a fact of political life in Rome, at least the Rome of the principate – and hence managing relations with the Senate was an important part of being emperor. The diplomacy and tact of Augustus towards the Senate is part of what made him so acclaimed, not least by the Senate who loved him for it – as they did Domitian’s father Vespasian and even more so his brother Titus. The mutual antagonism and hostility between the Senate and Domitian ultimately saw him assassinated for it, which might well have seen the empire in another civil war for imperial succession but for Nerva.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

The last of the chads of the Flavian dynasty, filled with anger towards the Senate.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Literally with respect to the currency

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(3) VESPASIAN –
FLAVIAN DYNASTY
(69 – 79 AD: 9 YEARS 11 MONTHS 22 DAYS)

Founder of the Flavian dynasty (of himself and his two sons), restorer of the Pax Romana, divine pharaoh – and possibly…the Messiah? Well perhaps not that last one – to paraphase Monty Python’s Life of Brian, he wasn’t the Messiah, just a good emperor.

Vespasian did after all found a dynasty, having to advance his imperial claim in a civil war of succession. Like it or not, dealing with the Senate and senatorial class was a fact of political life in Rome, at least the Rome of the principate – and hence managing relations with the Senate was an important part of being emperor. The diplomacy and tact of Augustus towards the Senate is part of what made him so acclaimed, not least by the Senate who loved him for it – as they did Vespasian and his son Titus (as opposed to mutual antagonism with his other son Domitian).

Vespasian restored the Pax Romana and political stability to the empire after the civil war of the Year of the Four Emperors (of which he was the fourth), as well as fiscal stability to an empire left desperately in debt by the depradations of Nero and Vitellius (albeit with some slight debasement of the currency).

“His fiscal reforms and consolidation of the empire generated political stability and a vast Roman building program.” The latter included that most famous of Roman landmarks, the Colosseum.

Vespasian had a distinguished military career in Britain and, most famously, leading the campaign (and besieging Jerusalem) against the Jewish Revolt, in the First Jewish-Roman War.

He left the latter for his son Titus to achieve victory while he advanced his imperial claim in the civil war of succession after the death of Nero, seizing Egypt and its critical grain supply to Rome. In Egypt, he was hailed as literally divine pharaoh (son of the creator god Amun or Zeus-Ammon, and incarnation of Serapis) amidst claims of miracles and visions – doubling down on literally messianic prophecies.

“According to Suetonius, a prophecy ubiquitous in the Eastern provinces claimed that from Judaea would come the future rulers of the world. Vespasian eventually believed that this prophecy applied to him, and found a number of omens and oracles that reinforced this belief.”

“Josephus (as well as Tacitus), reporting on the conclusion of the Jewish war, reported a prophecy that around the time when Jerusalem and the Second Temple would be taken, a man from their own nation, viz. the Messiah, would become governor “of the habitable earth”. Josephus interpreted the prophecy to denote Vespasian and his appointment as emperor in Judea.”

One of the more entertaining theorists of ‘Christ-myth’ history, Joseph Atwill, in his 2005 book Caesar’s Messiah, proposes that the Gospels and Jesus were nothing more than Flavian fanfiction written by Josephus and others, concocting Christianitity as a pacifist and pro-Roman religion as a solution to the problem of militant Judaism. Although apparently Atwill proposes that the Son of Man in the Gospels was Vespasian’s son Titus – which would make a Flavian holy trinity of Vespasian the Father, Titus the Son, and Domitian the Holy Spirit…?

Back to more mundane earthly matters, aided by the spoils of war from the Jewish Temple, Vespasian restored the finances and treasury of the empire, through tax reform and other means, most famously the urine tax on public toilets (such that urinals are named for him in modern Romance languages) with an anecdotal saying attributed to him that money doesn’t stink.

Apart from the First Jewish-Roman War, Vespasian suppressed the (second) Batavian Rebellion in Gaul and expanded the Roman conquest of Britain in campaigns led by the skilled general Agricola.

“Vespasian was known for his wit and his amiable manner alongside his commanding personality and military prowess..According to Suetonius, Vespasian ‘bore the frank language of his friends, the quips of pleaders, and the impudence of the philosophers with the greatest patience'”. Hence, it could be said that Vespasian had a flair for diplomacy and tact to rival Augustus (in marked contrast to his younger son) – and at a similarly critical juncture to placate the Senate and secure the stability of the principate under a new dynasty.

Dying of diarrhea (no, really), “Vespasian appears to have approached his own impending cult” (of imperial divinity) “with dry humour: according to Suetonius, his last words were puto deus fio (“I think I’m turning into a god”).

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

The Flavian dynasty of…chads. One of only two dynasties to be depicted by Dovahhatty as consisting entirely of chads – and rightly so.

RANKING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(2) TIBERIUS –
JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY
(14 – 37 AD: 22 YEARS 5 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

Like Claudius, you could arguably swap Tiberius into the top ten, albeit probably with more protest than for Claudius as some people – including contemporary Roman historians – seem to rank Tiberius among the worst. Even the Senate denied him the posthumous divine honors it gave Augustus and Claudius.

Those people are wrong. Indeed, it was a close call for me whom I ranked higher out of Claudius and Tiberius. As we’ve seen, ultimately I ranked Claudius higher, primarily because he inherited the empire from its worst emperor rather than its best – and because he was thrust into the position by the Praetorian Guard without any choice or preparation on his part.

Not that Tiberius was any happier to be emperor, although at least he had been nominated as heir in advance. “At the age of 55. Tiberius seems to have taken on the responsibilities of head of state with great reluctance…He came to be remembered as a dark, reclusive and sombre ruler who never really wanted to be emperor; Pliny the Elder called him ‘the gloomiest of men'”.

The problem for Tiberius is that he was overshadowed by Augustus as his predecessor, even in his own eyes. Perhaps foremost for his contemporaries was his absence of conquests as emperor, accustomed as they were to measuring an emperor by this criterion.

In my eyes, the prudence of Tiberius was exactly what the doctor ordered to consolidate the empire of Augustus – effectively Tiberius was the Hadrian to Augustus’ Trajan, but without withdrawing from any territory.

“Rather than embark on costly campaigns of conquest, he chose to strengthen the existing empire by building additional bases, using diplomacy as well as military threats, and generally refraining from getting drawn into petty squabbles between competing frontier tyrants. The result was a stronger, more consolidated empire, ensuring the imperial institutions introduced by his adoptive father would remain for centuries to come”.

This also overlooks that Tiberius had proved himself under Augustus as “one of the most successful Roman generals: his conquests of Pannonia, Dalmatia, Raetia, and (temporarily) parts of Germania laid the foundations for the empire’s northern frontier”.

It also overlooks an even better part of his prudence, though not unrelated to his prudence with respect to avoiding costly military campaigns – his financial prudence, rare among Roman emperors, such that he left the imperial treasury in huge surplus. Even Suetonius begrudged him that. While Suetonius notes that his successor and worst emperor Caligula squandered this, one wonders if the empire would have survived Caligula’s financial depredations otherwise – or whether the empire would have weathered its crisis of the first century, also known as the Year of the Four Emperors, quite so well but for the part Tiberius played in the empire’s military and financial consolidation.

Of course, it wasn’t just Augustus who overshadowed Tiberius, but Tiberius himself – particularly the latter part of his reign, after he retreated into isolation in Capri from 26 AD and his reign descended into despotism and depravity, albeit both overstated by Roman historians. The former accompanied the rise and fall of his Praetorian prefect Sejanus who effectively ruled Rome in his absence, while the latter was attributed to him in Capri by Suetonius. Let’s just say the less said about his little fishes the better – personally, I think it was just tabloid gossip made up or passed on by Suetonius. He’d probably be in a shoo-in for top ten if he’d died about halfway through his reign.

And like Claudius, when it came to a successor, he chose…poorly.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Like Claudius, the other emperor above all others destined to be depicted as a wojak – he “hated triumphs, hated people, hated being alive” (and pretty much hated being emperor as well.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER