Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: The Severan Dynasty

(20) SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS –
SEVERAN DYNASTY
193 – 211 AD (17 YEARS 9 MONTHS 26 DAYS)

And here we are at the end of the line, the other emperor of the two emperors right on my dividing line separating ‘bad’ from ‘good’ emperors – which I like to dub the Theodosian-Severan line, akin to my Pertinax-Thrax line separating ‘good’ from ‘bad’ emperors.

As for Theodosius, I anticipate that it will be controversial ranking Septimius Severus as ‘bad’, albeit right on the dividing line between bad and decent, only even more so for Severus. To be honest, I agonized over this ranking far more than I did for Theodosius. If it helps, you could consider my dividing line to be the Pertinax-Thrax-Severan-Theodosian line, such that all four might be considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to taste – although I dare say that will not appease those who might otherwise rank Septimius Severus as ‘good’, as they would probably rank him higher than Pertinax or Maximinus Thrax, perhaps even on a par with other ‘problematic’ emperors such as Tiberius or Domitian (albeit with a key difference between him and either Tiberius or Domitian on economic performance, namely that his sucked).

And yes, as for Theodosius, a large part of my ranking for Septimius Severus is that I just can’t forgive him for the crappy dynasty he founded and foisted on Rome, one of the worst imperial dynasties, second only to the Theodosian dynasty as the worst – even if he really only had any immediate responsibility for his two sons, Caracalla and Geta. It’s harder to hold him to account for Elagabalus and Severus Alexander.

Otherwise, I do have to acknowledge that, once Pertinax was killed by the Praetorian Guard, he was clearly the best imperial candidate in the so-called Year of Five Emperors – and that he provided the empire with much needed stability after the reign of Commodus and chaos following it, perhaps preventing it sliding prematurely into crisis akin to the political instability of the third century only forty or so years later.

And he did more than hold the empire in place – at least by the measurement of those historians that hypothesize he extended the empire to its greatest physical extent, even more than that of Trajan which is usually considered to be its territorial peak. It just depends on where one reckons the effective boundaries of the empire under Severus.

On the other hand, that additional territory was mostly worthless desert in north Africa, expanding southwards into the Sahara, albeit putting an end to desert nomad raids into its African provinces. He also expanded territory in Scotland, so equally as worthless. Indeed, his own son withdrew from the latter, with the empire withdrawing back to Hadrian’s Wall thereafter.

He also won a decisive victory against the Parthian Empire, adding more (desert) territory to the empire while establishing a status quo of Roman dominance in the region that endured until 251 AD.

Of course, one reason for all his military campaigning, necessary or otherwise, was that imperial administration bored him – such that he handed over almost complete control of it to his praetorian prefect Plautianus, and to his wife Julia Domna after she won out in her power struggle with Plautianus. He and the Senate also had a mutual antipathy towards each other, resulting in him ordering the execution of a large number of Senators.

His military campaigning, as well as his favoritism to the military in general, had significant costs – to pay for increasing the number of legions as well as the pay of soldiers, he debased the currency almost by half, the largest since the reign of Nero, compromising the long-term strength of the economy – which was to be compounded by his son Caracalla.

As per Youtuber Spectrum – “As we’re finally reaching the proper emperors, Septimius Severus is one of the last stops before we finally get into the good ones. And yes, this guy was not a good emperor, considering he was the one who started debasing the currency like a madman in order to increase his soldier’s pay. On one hand, keeping himself in power was the reason why. On the other, a lot of the problems the empire faced later down the line and possibly the reason it fell in the first place can be chalked up to him”.

I tend to agree with that statement, which also echoes the famous indictment of Severus by Edward Gibbon as a principal agent in the empire’s decline – “Posterity, who experienced the fatal effects of his maxims and example, justly considered him as the principal author of the decline of the Roman empire”.

In fairness, he may have had few good choices or chose the best of bad ones to avoid further civil war, which would have been even more destructive to the economy or currency. However, it remains that he literally bought political stability at the price of economic instability and aggrandizement by the army – like Theodosius and the institution of the Gothic foederati kicking the can down the road for the empire, which bore bitter fruit as soon as the Crisis of the Third Century, if not also the empire’s decline as Gibbon opined.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

I disagree with Dovahhatty, who depicted Septimius Severus as a chad – although I can respect that depiction as being one other than Dovahhatty’s tongue in cheek depictions of some of the worst emperors as chads. However, even while depicting him as a chad, Dovahhatty is somewhat apologetic about it – or rather has Septimius be somewhat apologetic about it, apologizing to the shade of Domitian for debasing the currency.

RATING: 3 STARS***
C-TIER (MID-TIER)
EMPIRE DEBASER