But wait – there’s more!

I’ve ranked the thirty Roman emperors I consider as ‘good’ emperors and the balance of fifty-one Roman emperors I consider as ‘bad’ emperors, a total of 81 emperors from Augustus to Romulus Augustulus – but as I noted for my good emperors, the bad emperors don’t quite end there. There’s my dishonorable mentions for imperial claimants that don’t quite have the same authenticity or legitimacy as those I ranked in my Top 10 Worst Roman Emperors or special mentions.

Yes – it’s usurping time! Or at least, those imperial claimants generally generally labelled as usurpers. That term is bit elastic or a question of degree for Roman emperors, with the primary distinction being those who succeeded in their imperial claim and those who did not – “A large number of emperors commonly considered as legitimate began their rule as usurpers, revolting against the previous legitimate emperor”.

As I said at the outset of ranking the emperors, I’ve gone by Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors but reserved honorable mention – or in this case dishonorable mention – for those entries in the Wikipedia list which are noted as being of “ambiguous legitimacy” or “varying ascribed status”. The junior co-emperors marked as the latter “are figures, mostly children, who are usually not counted as “true” emperors given their submissive status to the senior emperor, but are still present in some lists of rulers”.

And in contrast to my three honorable mentions, there’s a lot more dishonorable mentions for usurpers and other dubious imperial figures. After all, usurpers by definition tend to be ‘bad’, although some of them come close to or sit right on the line between my ‘good’ and ‘bad’ rankings.

Ultimately, I’ve ranked twenty such emperors or imperial figures in fifteen dishonorable mentions (obviously ranking two together in some dishonorable mention entries where they were essentially similar or close enough for the one entry)