I’ve ranked the best – now it’s time for the rest.

I’m ranking all the Roman emperors (until 476 AD). I’ve ranked the thirty emperors I regard as good in my top ten best Roman emperors and twenty special mentions. I’ve ranked my top ten worst Roman emperors, but the Roman empire has so many more bad emperors to give – there were substantially more bad than good emperors, although the bad emperors tended to reign for shorter periods so it more than evens up by length of reign (otherwise you’d think the empire would have collapsed sooner).

My usual rule is twenty special mentions for a top ten – so here I have twenty special mentions for the balance of ‘bad’ emperors, but I’ve had to cram a number of emperors into some entries, albeit to a common denominator or theme.

I think you would have a reasonable argument to swap in any of my first eight special mentions for ‘bad’ emperors into my top ten worst emperors, except perhaps that they lack the name recognition, impact or endurance of reign of my top ten entries. After that, the special mentions become more borderline, right up to my last two special mentions as my dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors.

 

To recap my top 10 worst Roman emperors ahead of these special mentions:

1 – Caligula

2 – Nero

3 – Elagabalus

4 – Honorius

5 – Valentinian III

6 – Commodus

7 – Caracalla

8 – Constantine II

9 – Arcadius

10 – Petronius Maximus

 

EMPIRE MAKER / SAVIOR / BASER OR EMPIRE BREAKER / DEBASER / DEBAUCHER

 

In addition to my usual star and tier-rankings, I also have my own particular (and hence subjective) rankings for those (good) emperors that made or saved the empire (or strengthened its base) – or the (bad) emperors that broke, debased or debauched it. Given these are my special mentions for bad emperors, I’ll throw in whether they are empire breakers, debasers or debauchers after their star and tier rankings.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Finally, because I have used Youtuber Dovahhatty’s Unbiased History of Rome animated video series as the source of images to depict each emperor, I’ll rank how well Dovahhatty did in his depiction of them.  His Unbiased History of Rome videos are probably my single biggest influence for Roman history – and certainly on Youtube.

While he does not actually rank the emperors as a whole, he does rank them individually by meme cartoon figures as being (good) chads or (bad) virgins, with the occasional (good or bad) wojaks. Of course, his tongue is firmly in his parody cheek, such as when he depicts some of the worst Roman emperors as the chads they proclaimed themselves to be.

 

 

(1) VITELLIUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FOUR EMPERORS
(69 AD: 8 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

The fat bastard of the Roman Empire, third and worst of the four emperors in the so-called Year of the Four Emperors, the succession crisis following Nero and indeed coming close to out-Neroing Nero. Also first of my special mentions who could be swapped into my top ten worst emperors, but for lacking the same notoriety or endurance of reign.

In the words of Youtuber Spectrum, “you know, when the legacy you leave behind is nothing more than being a fat bastard, you know you were never a good emperor in the first place”.

The Gospel of Suetonius gave him the reputation of being an obese glutton, using emetics to throw up “so as to be able to indulge in banquets four times a day, and often having himself invited over to a different noble’s house for each one”

“One of the most famous of these feasts was offered Vitellius by his brother Lucius, at which, it is said, there were served up no less than two thousand choice fishes, and seven thousand birds. Yet even this supper he himself outdid, at a feast which he gave upon the first use of a dish which had been made for him, and which, for its extraordinary size, he called “The Shield of Minerva”. In this dish there were tossed up together the livers of pike, the brains of pheasants and peacocks, with the tongues of flamingos, and the entrails of lampreys, which had been brought in ships of war as far as from Parthia and the Spanish Straits.”

Edward Gibbon with his usual snark described him as “the beastly Vitellius” – “Vitellius consumed in mere eating at least six millions of our money, in about seven months. It is not easy to express his vices with dignity, or even decency”.

What else? Well he was an usurper – worse, a usurper of a usurper (of a usurper – the third time definitely wasn’t the charm in this case). He was appointed to his military command by Galba, who had claimed the throne after the assassination of Nero the year previously, which he then used to revolt against Galba – although he ultimately claimed the throne from Otho, who had assassinated Galba in the meantime.

He hung around with Tiberius in the latter’s decadent Capri retirement, befriended Caligula and flattered Nero. He even honored Nero as divine, “had Nero’s songs performed in public, and attempted to imitate Nero”.

He reputedly starved his mother to death (or alternatively granted her request for poison) to fulfil some BS psychic prediction that he would rule longer if his mother died first. Speaking of prophecies, his horoscope at birth so horrified his family that his father attempted to quash him from becoming consul.

Under him, “Rome became the scene of riot and massacre, gladiatorial shows and extravagant feasting”. When his nemesis came in the form of Vespasian, he even tried to chicken out with an abdication, with the imperial equivalent of leaving the keys in the ignition – leaving the insignia of empire at the Temple of Concord – but the Praetorian Guard were having none of that and forced him to return to the palace to get what was rightly coming to him. That is, dragged out from hiding, killed by the mob, and thrown into the Tiber, perhaps with his head paraded around Rome.

Good riddance.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Damn right, he did – just look at that fat wojak with his donuts!

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE DEBAUCHER

 

 

(2) DIDIUS JULIANUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FIVE EMPERORS
(193 AD: 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

Did…did you just buy the Roman empire, dude?

Yes – it’s the emperor who bought his position when the Praetorian Guard infamously auctioned it off after assassinating his predecessor Pertinax, thereby becoming the worst of the imperial claimants in the so-called Year of the Five Emperors (as well as a special mention that could arguably be swapped into the top ten worst emperors) and throwing the position of emperor itself into disrepute. “His blatant purchase of the throne shattered any illusions of normalcy in the Roman Empire”.

Which worked out as well as you’d expect for him, which is to say not at all, as three rival generals – you know, men with armies rather than money – laid claim to the imperial throne, with Septimus Severus winning out.

Of course, with such a brief ill-gotten reign, he had no lasting accomplishment or effect except one and even that sucked – devaluing the currency, reversing the reforms of Pertinax, such that he literally and figuratively debased the empire. You’d think he’d be smarter about money since that was the only quality that literally bought him the throne.

Historian Cassius Dio had him exclaim just prior to being killed by a soldier – “But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?”

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Dovahhatty answered those questions best. Firstly, listening to his wife, nagging him into buying the empire. (Dovahhatty captions her “Go and buy the empire! I’ve already bought our imperial regalia”). Secondly, by consequence himself.

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE DEBASER

 

 

(3) GETA –
SEVERAN DYNASTY
(211 AD: 10 MONTHS AND 15/22 DAYS)

 

Caracalla lite – as bad as his older brother, just not as good at being bad. Hence one of my special mention entries you could arguably swap into the ten worst emperors, similar to that other bad brother Constantine II.

The younger of two brothers who hated each other even before they became co-emperors upon their father’s death – technically Geta was emperor from 209, as Caracalla was from 198, but both were junior or subordinate emperors to their father, Septimus Severus, the first time the empire was ruled by multiple emperors.

That extended to dividing the palace between them, each with guards to prevent assassination by the other, and literally only meeting in the presence of their mother in attempts to mediate their rivalry. Roman historian Herodian asserted that their rivalry even extended to plans to split the empire between them in two halves (foreshadowing the empires’ subsequent division into eastern and western halves) but their mother sensibly quashed those plans.

Caracalla was more ruthless and hence got the jump on Geta, assassinating the latter under pretext of a ‘peace meeting’ in their mother’s quarters to deprive Geta of his guards, with Geta dying in her arms.

There’s not much more to say – as Spectrum pointed out, Geta ranks somewhat above Caracalla because history was spared Geta inflicting himself on it too long. “Apparently he (Geta) was just like him (Caracalla) and therefore terrible both as a person and as a ruler. He comes out as the better one just because he didn’t live as long so…yay?”

As usual, Gibbon summed it up best – “In the anguish of a disappointed father, Severus foretold that the weaker of his sons would fall a sacrifice to the stronger; who, in his turn, would be ruined by his own vices.”

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

The chad Caracalla vs the virgin Geta – yeah, pretty much, except for Caracalla, who was worse.

I have to admit that Geta features in one of Dovahhatty’s funniest distortions of history – that Caracalla did not conspire the assassination of his brother but just some random guard that was so bored by their mother’s speech for them just to get along.

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBASER

 

 

(4) TREBONIANUS GALLUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(251 – 253 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS)

 

The embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century.

Honestly, I’m just impressed and surprised that this is the first emperor from the Crisis of the Third Century among my worst emperors, albeit as one of my special mentions you could arguably swap into the top ten worst emperors.

Indeed, for a period notorious for all the systemic problems of the empire – including those of imperial office – magnified to the point of the empire’s near collapse, as indicated by the very name historiographical convention has given it, it’s surprising how many capable emperors it did have, albeit more leading it out of the crisis than going in. I ranked Aurelian in third place in my top ten best emperors – but I also awarded special mention to Gallienus, Claudius Gothicus, Tacitus, Probus and Carus.

Yes – it certainly did have its bad emperors and we’re coming to them, but mostly they didn’t last long before being assassinated or killed by their successors, which is perhaps the archetypal defining trait of the period.

However, Trebonius Gallus stands out, both for the length of his reign as longer than most imperial claimants in this period, and that he embodied impotent and supine inactivity at a time of crisis. Well, not literally impotent, since he had a son whom he made co-emperor (but was killed by soldiers at the same time as his father, hence no Gallan dynasty) – but impotent in terms of doing anything useful.

As per Youtuber Spectrum – “Here’s a tip if you’re the emperor during the Crisis of the Third Century. Don’t be completely useless. Actually respond to barbarian invasions. And please mind the debasement of the currency. Do anything, at all. Anything. Please. Just don’t be a useless NEET”.

And by debasement of the currency, I mean gutting it to make it almost completely useless, reducing it to less than a hundredth of its silver content.

He may even have been worse than useless, betraying his predecessor Decius for the latter to be defeated by invading Goths, at least according to contemporary rumors supported by the historian Dexippus. It’s probably not true but I prefer to believe it.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Classic virgin depiction.

I also like Dovahhatty borrowing from Captain America – “No, I don’t think I will” – as the caption in answer to Decius pleading for reinforcements. Indeed, Dovahhatty gives him some of the funniest captions, including the one I use as general feature image for these special mentions – “I. DON’T. CAAARE!”

Needless to say, Dovahhatty subscribes to the treason theory. Treason doesn’t pay as the Gothic leader Cniva demanded more tribute – “which of course Gallus couldn’t pay, that was the point, so he used this to invade the empire again”

 

RANKING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKER

 

 

(5) CARINUS –
NON-DYNASTIC (CARAN DYNASTY) / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(283-285 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

And it’s my other special mention for a Crisis of the Third Century emperor who could arguably be swapped into the top ten worst emperors. The empire was almost out of the crisis but had to deal with this reprobate before he was defeated and killed in battle with a far better imperial claimant, Diocletian, whose reign finally ended the crisis.

Ironically, his father Carus was one of the people who had done their part to see an end to the crisis, hence ranking special mention in my good emperors, but the apple fell pretty far from the tree in this case. Given that he succeeded his father as emperor, that would technically make him part of a Caran dynasty but I’m counting it as non-dynastic because Carus disowned him on hearing how he ruled as co-emperor and declared an intention of replacing him with yet another better candidate (and special mention in my good emperors), Constantius. There was also his brother Numerian, who had accompanied their father on campaign against the Sassanid Persians (which saw both of them killed in succession) while Carinus had been appointed as co-emperor in the western empire.

“Carinus has the reputation of being one of the worst Roman emperors…dissolute and incompetent”.

“He indulged in all manner of extravagance and excess. He is said to have married and divorced nine different women during his short reign in Rome and to have made his private life notorious…to have persecuted many who he felt had treated him with insufficient respect before his elevation, to have alienated the Senate by his open dislike and contempt, and to have prostituted the imperial dignity with the various low entertainments he introduced at court”.

Despite (or perhaps because of) all his marriages, he was reputed to have been a little too…thirsty with the wives of his officers, which saw him ‘fragged’ by one such man at the Battle of Margus River against Diocletian. That and his army, which outnumbered that of Diocletian, deserted him to Diocletian.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yes – we’re talking a memetic virgin emperor here. Dovahhatty has some fun with Carinus “cucking” his officers with their wives and earning his fate at the hands of one of them.

 

RANKING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBAUCHER

 

 

(6) BASILISCUS –
LEONID DYNASTY
(475-476 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS)

 

And now we come to the last eastern emperor before my arbitrary cut-off point of 476 AD for the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus and the ‘fall’ of the (western) Roman Empire. (Yes, technically Zeno had regained his throne for a second reign just in time for Romulus Augustulus being deposed, but as I stated in the introduction to my top ten emperors, I excluded Zeno so as to consider him with the eastern emperors as he mostly reigned after the fall of the west).

And it might be said that the eastern empire was saving up its worst to that point, excluding Arcadius as the eastern version of Honorius – and hence one of my special mentions that could arguably be swapped into the top ten worst emperors. The only redeeming feature of the reign of Basiliscus was its brevity, as it was cut mercifully short by the emperor he had deposed, Zeno, deposing him in turn to take the throne back.

To give him credit, he had a distinguished military career which had seem him rise to the position of magister militum or military commander in Thrace, where he had considerable success guarding the Balkan frontier of the eastern empire, defeating the Huns and Goths.

Which makes it even more mystifying that he botched the invasion of the Vandal kingdom in North Africa, the eastern empire’s last ditch effort under Emperor Leo to salvage the western empire before the latter fell. The eastern empire’s expedition was reputed to have consisted of 1,113 ships with over 100,000 men under the command of Basiliscus. Basiliscus accepted the Vandal king Gaeseric’s offer of a truce – which the Vandals used to construct fireships to wreak utter havoc on the eastern empire’s fleet, defeating it at the Battle of Cape Bon in 468 AD and reducing the eastern empire to near bankruptcy for thirty years with the loss of its fleet.

There were accusations at the time that Basiliscus had been bribed to lose the battle by Aspar, the Germanic magister militum or commander in chief of the eastern empire, who was really running the eastern empire at that time. Historians tend to dismiss this but do accept that Baliscus was incompetent or foolish for accepting the offer of a truce.

That should have been the end of him but no – he came crawling back to Constantinople and literally hid in a church, until his sister – the Empress Verina – secured him a pardon, ostensibly for a comfortable retirement. Damn – the irony of a western emperor named Julius Nepos, contemporaneous with Basiliscus to boot, when Basiliscus might have been named Basiliscus Nepotismus.

Amazingly, he managed to slime his way to the throne itself, conspiring with his sister to depose the emperor Zeno. The conspiracy was to install her lover Patricus as emperor, but Basilicus convinced the eastern Roman Senate to acclaim him as emperor instead.

Needless to say, his brief reign antagonized everyone – starting with his co-conspirators, not least his sister when he not only subverted her choice of Patricus as emperor, but also had Patricus executed. His other co-conspirators defected back to Zeno and he alienated everyone else through a combination of heavy taxation (presumably to help pay back the bankruptcy his loss of the fleet had caused) or heretical religious policies.

Not surprisingly, Zeno reclaimed his throne and Basiliscus once again hid in a church – but this time had no sister to help him out. The legend is that he surrendered upon Zeno taking an oath not to spill his blood, but Zeno simply stripped him and left him inside an empty cistern to die instead, keeping the oath in its literal sense.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

The last virgin eastern emperor before the fall of the western empire – Yes, technically there was Zeno as I said, but Dovahhatty depicts him as a wojak. Although…Dovahhatty doesn’t even show him as emperor, only as the nameless Roman commander who lost the Battle of Cape Bon.

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKER

 

 

(7) LAST WESTERN EMPERORS –
LIBIUS SEVERUS, OLYBRIUS, GLYCERIUS, ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS, JULIUS NEPOS, AVITUS & ANTHEMIUS
(455-456 & 461-476 AD)

 

The archetypal weak emperors of the dying western empire – embodying the terminal decline of imperial office to the figureheads or puppets of the barbarian warlords who ruled the empire or its remnants in all but name.

Best symbolized by the “last western emperor”, Romulus Augustulus, whose deposition by Odoacer marked the end of the western empire as political entity and proverbial Fall of the Roman Empire – with the perfect irony of being named for Rome’s legendary founder and derisively nicknamed Augustulus or little Augustus.

Such was the power of that irony that historians traditionally identified him as the last western emperor, even though the claim arguably belongs to Julius Nepos (and others asserted imperial claims even afterwards), and his deposition as the Fall of the Empire.

“Romulus being seen as the last emperor over other contenders derives not only from Romulus having been the last emperor proclaimed in the west, but also from the poetic nature of being named after both Romulus, the founder of Rome, and Augustus, the first Roman emperor. Many historians have noted the coincidence that the last emperor combined the names of both the city’s founder and the first emperor. In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon wrote that “the appellations of the two great founders of the city and of the monarchy were thus strangely united in the last of their successors.””

The archetypal weakness of the last western Roman emperors is such that you could arguably swap all of them into my top ten worst emperors and indeed I considered Romulus Augustulus for my wildcard tenth place given how well he symbolized them as well as the irony of his name. In the end, I considered that they ranked special mention as opposed to other emperors with more notorious cruelty and depravity or that were more actively destructive – or both, above all those who ruled from a position or at at time of greater imperial power.

These last western emperors may have been archetypally weak, but that wasn’t so much any particular emperor as it was a quality of the position of emperor itself by then – excepting of course Majorian’s reign and reversal of fortune for a few years. And intentionally so, by the military commanders who sought to use these emperors as puppets, until the barbarian warlord Odoacer decided to dispense with such puppets altogether.

So I also considered that it wouldn’t be fair to simply rank the last non-dynastic western Roman emperors in my top ten worst emperors – with the notable exception of Petronius Maximus, whom I did consider to be actively destructive enough for my wildcard tenth place entry. That’s so even for poor Romulus Augustulus despite the notoriety of his name and status as the last western emperor – and somewhat surprisingly, he actually ranked in the middle of the pack among these emperors, which I decided to rank both in and within the one special mention.

 

So here goes ranking them within the special mention, from worst to best.

 

First, the four who rank worst as the archetypal weak last western roman emperors:

 

LIBIUS SEVERUS (461-465 AD: 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS 26 DAYS)

I see no reason to dissent from Dovahhatty’s assessment that the German commander Ricimer deliberately “arranged for the weakest, most pathetic of men to be his puppet” – particularly as he did so after Majorian and would have been determined to avoid another such figure. He was rumored to have been poisoned by Ricimer to abandon him for a candidate more appealing to the eastern empire.

 

OLYBRIUS (472 AD: 7 MONTHS)

The oily Olybrius comes in next, with the distinction of being a puppet twice over – for the Vandals and for Ricimer, before dying of illness.

 

GLYCERIUS (473-474 AD: 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 19/21 DAYS)

Glycerius was at least not the puppet of Ricimer, because that rat had finally died during the reign of his predecessor Olybrius – instead he was the puppet of Gundobad, the new German military commander, until Gundobad decided to abandon him. And at least he managed to deter invasions of Italy by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths – the former by his local commanders repelling it and the second by paying them tribute in gold. He was not recognized by the eastern emperor, who instead sent an army to install its candidate, Julius Nepos – although Glycerius managed to peacefully abdicate and be ordained a bishop

 

ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS (475-476 AD: 10 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

And here he is – the iconic last western Roman emperor but surprisingly not the worst of them. After all, he was a child briefly enthroned by his father as his nickname signified. Still a weak puppet emperor but I give him bonus points because he was a child. Also, at least he was a puppet of a Roman commander, his father Orestes. Orestes was smart enough to not claim the throne for himself, given how dangerous that particular seat was by this time, but ruling through his son as figurehead didn’t really work out for him either. The barbarian general Odoacer defeated and killed him, deposing Romulus as well and dispensing with any western emperor altogether, ruling as the new barbarian king of Italy. Odoacer was surprising decent about it all, including sparing Romulus to live in peaceful retirement.

 

And now the three who rank somewhat above the other last western roman emperors for at least trying to do something

 

JULIUS NEPOS (474-475 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

Julius Nepos was the eastern empire’s candidate for western emperor who deposed Glycerius, but was deposed in turn by the Roman commander Orestes. Bonus points for retreating to his home province of Dalmatia and continuing to claim the western imperial title from there, with the continued recognition of the eastern empire – effectively seceding from and even outlasting Roman imperial rule in Italy until he was killed in 480, by two of his generals while planning an expedition to recover Italy. Ironically, even Odoacer paid lip service to him as emperor, minting coins in his name but otherwise ignoring him – which was pretty much also what the eastern empire did as well, recognizing him but otherwise not giving him any actual support.

He had also worked to restore the western empire in his brief reign – possibly repelling a Visigothic invasion of Italy and also managing to again reduce the Burgundians to Roman foederati, but otherwise mostly unsuccessful in reviving Roman power in Gaul, unable to halt Visigothic conquests there.

 

AVITUS (455-456 AD: 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

Absent the revival of Roman power under a figure such as Majorian, the western empire didn’t have much prospect for survival on its own except perhaps for the two options involving an alliance or merger with the only two states that could save it. Avitus tried for the first – a Romano-Gothic alliance, from which one might even speculate on an enduring western Romano-Gothic empire (particularly if it involved both Visigoths and Ostrogoths).

Avitus had a good relationship with the Visigoths, arguably the best of Rome’s Germanic foederati at that time – particularly their king Theodoric II, as Avitus had come out of retirement to fight alongside the previous king Theodoric and the supreme Roman commander Aetius as allies against the Huns. He was sent as an ambassador to Theodoric II, probably to seek support for the emperor, although he loses points for that emperor being Petronius Maximus. As Petronius Maximus was killed by the Roman mob and the Vandals sacked Rome, Theodoric II acclaimed Avitus as emperor instead.

Avitus opposed the reduction of the empire to Italy alone – one might think for good reasons of Gaul being both the remaining reliable source of army recruitment in the western empire and also his power base, bringing a Gallic army (and probably Gothic forces) with him to Italy as well as seeking to introduce Gallic senators into the imperial administration.

And pretty much everyone in Rome hated him for it as the “foreign” emperor – and having invaded Hispania at his behest, Theodoric II was unable to help him against the rebel Roman generals who deposed him, although again he loses points for one of those generals being Majorian. So yes – he was deposed for his trouble but spared on condition that he became a bishop, only perhaps to have been killed afterwards anyway.

 

ANTHEMIUS (467-472 AD: 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

Generally recognized as the last effective western emperor – and perhaps not coincidentally the one with the longest reign – Anthemius tried for the second and more obvious of the two options for alliance or support, the eastern empire, not surprisingly reflecting that he came from there as its candidate for western emperor.

“Anthemius attempted to solve the two primary military challenges facing the remains of the Western Roman Empire: the resurgent Visigoths, under Euric, whose domain straddled the Pyrenees; and the unvanquished Vandals, under Geiseric, in undisputed control of North Africa”.

He even had the support of the eastern empire for the latter, with the eastern empire launching its own massive invasion fleet against the Vandal kingdom in north Africa – something that would have been much better timed with Majorian’s planned campaign against the Vandals. Sadly, the eastern empire screwed this up, with the catastrophic defeat of its fleet and consequent near bankruptcy of their empire for thirty years or so.

Predictably, Anthemius ran afoul of Ricimer – “Unlike most of his predecessors, Anthemius refused to yield, and his insistence on ruling independently brought him into conflict with Ricimer. This eventually escalated into open warfare between the two, with the result that Anthemius lost not only his throne, but also his head, in 472.”

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Dovahhatty summed up the fate of the western empire and its last emperors best, as in my feature image with Odoacer and Romulus Augustulus – “When Odoacer broke through Ravenna’s gates, he didn’t find the all-powerful emperor of the civilized world…instead he found a weak, trembling child unable to protect himself, much less the people he nominally ruled”.

Although Dovahhatty depicted poor Romulus as a memetic virgin, it was more from sheer pathos than the usual reprehensible character for which Dovahhatty reserved depiction as virgins.

Otherwise, Dovahhatty’s depictions in order of my rankings –

AVITUS: Wojak

LIBIUS SEVERUS: Virgin

ANTHEMIUS: Wojak

OLYBRIUS: Wojak

GLYCERIUS: Wojak

JULIUS NEPOS: Wojak

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKERS (although they were really more broken emperors at that point)

 

 

(8) VALENTINIAN II –
VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE
(388 – 392 AD: 3 YEARS 8 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

 

The last western emperors as weak puppets prompt to mind Valentinian II as their uncannily similar precursor. Indeed, Valentinian II compares closely to Romulus Augustulus as weak puppet child emperor, except as a puppet for successive powerful interests in turn – his mother, his co-rulers, and powerful military commanders. Admittedly Valentinian II had a longer “reign” than Romulus Augustulus but an unhappier ending.

As the son of the angriest Roman emperor Valentinian and the hottest woman in the empire Justina, the apple fell pretty far from the tree with poor Valentinian II. In fairness, he was pretty much passed around as token imperial baggage from the outset as a young child – being acclaimed as augustus by his father’s military commanders at the age of four years when his father died on campaign in 375 AD (from that stroke while yelling at Germanic envoys).

Of course, his older half-brother Gratian was already augustus of the western empire – not that the commanders bothered consulting Gratian (or Valens in the eastern empire) when they proclaimed him emperor – so he was effectively sidelined as co-emperor from the start.

However he found himself abruptly at the front line of the western imperial throne only eight years later when Gratian was usurped by Magnus Maximus and killed. Magnus tolerated Valentinian as co-emperor for a short period before marching on Italy, which is when Valentinian and his mother fled to the eastern emperor, at that time Theodosius.

Valentinian thus owed his rule as sole emperor in the western empire to Theodosius, who successfully went to war to defeat Magnus Maximus, restoring Valentinian – although it probably would have been better for everyone involved, including Valentinian himself, if Theodosius had not done so.

Not that it meant anything – as Theodosius just went about ignoring Valentinian as he appointed key administrators and minting coins implying his guardianship over Valentinian, which modern historians suspect shows that he had no intention of letting Valentinian rule, instead planning for his own two sons to succeed him.

The primary appointment Theodosius made was his general Arbogast (of Frankish origin) as magister militum of the western empire – and moreover guardian of Valentinian. Nominally acting in the name of Valentinian, Arbogast blatantly acted in his own name and rode roughshod over Valentinian, even ignoring Valentinian’s attempt to dismiss him – publicly tearing up Valentinian’s decree and stating that Valentinian had not appointed him in the first place so couldn’t dismiss him.

Not long after, Valentinian was found hanged in his residence – which Arbogast claimed to be suicide and others suspected, then and since, to be murder done by Arbogast or on his orders.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yet another emperor doomed to be depicted as wojak – I do love his wide-eyed facial expression in that screenshot, as well as Argobast asking him “Who are you, again?”

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST-TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBASER

 

 

(9) CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY EMPERORS –
BALBINUS, PUPIENUS, GORDIAN I, GORDIAN II, QUINTILLUS, FLORIANUS, AEMILIAN & NUMERIAN
(238, 253, 270, 276 & 283-284)

 

The other archetypal weak emperors almost to compare with the last western Roman emperors as well as that defining trait of the Crisis of the Third Century – imperial claimants, usually proclaimed by their legions but occasionally the Senate or even mobs, usurping the throne for less than a year before being usurped and killed in turn.

And yes – similarly to my special mention ranking for the last western Roman emperors, their archetypal weakness is such that you could arguably swap all of them into my top ten worst emperors but I ultimately considered them to be too inconsequential for top ten ranking.

Honestly, I’m just surprised that there weren’t more of them, since the quick and violent succession of one emperor after another is the enduring image of the Crisis. Indeed, as I’ve observed previously, it’s somewhat surprising how many capable emperors there were in the Crisis, albeit mostly leading the empire out of it – Aurelian of course, but also Gallienus, Claudius Gothicus, Tacitus, Probus, and Carus.

And then there’s these guys, who basically defined the Crisis. Similarly to the last western Roman emperors, I have decided to rank them all together in one special mention. So here goes ranking them within the special mention, from worst to best.

 

BALBINUS & PUPIENUS
(238 AD: 99 DAYS)

 

The most pathetic of the imperial claimants in the year that outdid the previous Year of the Four Emperors and the Year of the Five Emperors, the Year of the Six Emperors. The Senate desperately proclaimed them as co-emperors to oppose Maximinus Thrax and everyone but the Senate hated them for it. I rank Pupienus as better because he at least had some military background and accordingly mobilized forces to defend against Maximinus marching on Rome. Pupienus got lucky when Maximinus unsuccessfully besieged the city of Aquileia and was assassinated by his own troops.

Ultimately the death of Maximinus didn’t help either of them – Bubienus had one job in the meantime and he failed at that, keeping order in Rome. They also didn’t trust each other, suspecting assassination plots by the other, which ironically led to the real assassination plot by the Praetorian Guard succeeding, and with suitably grisly violence.

 

GORDIAN I & GORDIAN II
(238 AD: 22 DAYS)

 

A close call with Balbinus and Pupienus as the most pathetic of the imperial claimants on whom the Senate desperately latched to oppose Maximinus Thrax in the Year of the Six Emperors – particularly given that their “reigns” were the shortest of any emperor, with one possible exception. I rank them marginally better as they somehow got a dynasty named for them, the Gordian dynasty, albeit more through yet another Gordian, and they at least had some popular support – a mob that demanded Gordian I as emperor in a revolt in the province of Africa, forcing him to accept the imperial claim although he declared his son Gordian II as co-emperor.

Unfortunately, the governor of the neighboring province Numidia had a grudge against Gordian and declared his support for Maximinus Thrax. More importantly, he had the only legion stationed in the region, which he used to invade Africa – the experienced veterans of the legion easily trounced the mob militia led by Gordian II, who was killed in the clash known as the Battle of Carthage. Gordian hanged himself on hearing of his son’s death.

As per Spectrum on Gordian I, “what a great idea to rebel against the established power with nothing but a militia you can’t even command” – and on Gordian II, “what a great idea to rebel against the established power with nothing but a militia you CAN command, only to put them up against actual trained soldiers”.

 

QUINTILLUS
(270 AD: 17-77 DAYS?)

 

It’s pretty impressive that this emperor may have had the shortest reign of any emperor, possibly as little as 17 days, and yet still outranks other emperors who were worse. I say possibly because the few historical records of his reign contradict each other, including on its length.

But yes – he was always going to rank poorly, not just for the brevity of his reign (during which he never visited Rome) but because his rival claimant was none other than Aurelian. Quintullus was the brother of Claudius Gothicus and was acclaimed emperor upon his brother’s death, but the legions which had followed Claudius in campaigning along the Danube elevated their current leader Aurelian as emperor. Quintillus was either killed by his own soldiers, killed in battle with Aurelian or killed himself.

 

FLORIANUS
(276 AD: 80-88 DAYS)

 

The half-brother of emperor Tacitus, he proclaimed himself as emperor upon the death of Tacitus. To his credit, he had been sent by Tacitus to lead troops to Pannonia to repel raids by Goths and continued to campaign against them after declaring himself emperor, winning a major victory. However, a far better military commander and imperial claimant, Probus, led a revolt against him from the eastern provinces – particularly Egypt, so that Probus was able to cut off its grain supply to the empire. He then got trounced by the masterful strategy of Probus at the Cilian Gates, where Probus used the terrain and hot climate to chip away at the morale of Florianus’ army – which then rose up against him and killed him.

 

AEMILIAN / AEMILIANUS
(253 AD: 88 DAYS?)

 

Commander of the troops in Moesia, he won an important victory against the invading Goths and of course was proclaimed emperor by his troops, although I’m okay with that – as were his troops and many others – as the reigning emperor was the useless Trebonius Gallus. He led his troops into Italy where he defeated Trebonius Gallus in battle – only to be killed by his own men a month later when a better imperial claimant Valerian marched against him with a bigger army.

 

NUMERIAN
(283-284 AD: 1 YEAR 3-4 MONTHS)

 

The best of this bad bunch, reflecting his somewhat longer reign and that he did not usurp the throne but inherited it from his father Carus, with whom he was on campaign against the Sassanid Persians. He led the army in its orderly withdrawal from Persia – essentially abandoning his father’s victories – but became the subject of the Praetorian Guard playing Weekend at Bernies with his corpse – feigning that he was still alive but in isolation from poor health when they had already killed him. However, his leading military commander Diocletian was having none of that – the troops proclaimed Diocletian emperor, Diocletian executed Aper as the ringleader of the Praetorian Guard responsible for the plot, and Diocletian finally ended the Crisis of the Third Century by being awesome.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

As with the last western Roman emperors, I thought Dovahhatty’s depiction of the Crisis emperors was summed up by the two memetic virgins Balbinus and Pupienus each accusing the other of being a bad emperor. Spoiler – they were both right.

Otherwise, Dovahhatty’s depictions in order of my rankings –

 

GORDIAN I: Wojak

GORDIAN II: Wojak

QUINTILLUS: Virgin (predictably since he opposed Aurelian, Dovahhatty’s favorite emperor)

FLORIANUS: Virgin

AEMILIAN: Wojak

NUMERIAN: Wojak

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST-TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKERS

 

 

(10) JOVIAN –
USUALLY THROWN IN AS CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY BUT REALLY NON-DYNASTIC
(363 – 364 AD: 7 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

 

The archetypal brief Crisis of the Third Century emperors prompt to mind the similarly brief reign of Jovian – although he really is in a category of his own, whose brief reign was seen as a bit of a joke. It wasn’t really his fault – all he did was have defeat handed to him from his predecessor and then die.

That predecessor was Julian, killed in battle against the Sassanid Persians. Jovian, a member of the imperial bodyguard who had accompanied Julian on campaign, was proclaimed emperor by the troops. With the army trapped from crossing the Tigris River back to the empire, he had no choice but to sue for peace on humiliating terms in a treaty that was widely seen as a disgrace by the Romans.

He spent his brief reign – albeit as the last emperor to rule the whole empire during his entire reign – travelling back to Constantinople and answering petitions about doctrinal issues by Christian bishops, Julian’s pagan revival now effectively reversed by Jovian as Christian emperor.

He died as yet another emperor who never set foot in Rome – his death attributed to breathing poisonous fumes from his newly painted bedchamber heated by a brazier, which sounds suspiciously like a cover for assassination (but perhaps just crazy enough to be a genuine accident – it is after all a lot subtler than the usual assassin’s sword in the back). He was succeeded by Valentinian as western emperor and Valens as eastern emperor.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yet another emperor perfectly encapsulated as wojak – otherwise barely registers except as historical footnote.

 

RATING: 2 STAR**
D-TIER (LOW TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBASER

 

 

(11) YEAR OF THE FOUR EMPERORS –
OTHO & GALBA
(GALBA 68-69 AD: 7 MONTHS 7 DAYS)
(OTHO 69 AD: 3 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

The Crisis of the Third Century prompts to mind its precursor in the succession crisis of the first century after Nero – the so-called Year of the Four Emperors, with these guys as its counterparts of Bubienus and Pupienus.

Of course, the succession crisis of the first century was brief and did not come close to the systemic crisis of the third century – the empire was simply too solid and strong in the first century for that, albeit Rome was perhaps fortunate that the Year of Four Emperors ultimately led to one of its best imperial dynasties, the Flavian dynasty, with the fourth emperor.

Although as Tacitus noted, the succession crisis did “divulge that secret of the empire” among “all the legions and their generals” – “that emperors could be made elsewhere than in Rome”, something they would very much take to heart in the third century.

Speaking of Tacitus, he commented on Galba “that all would have agreed he was equal to the imperial office if he had never held it” – a characteristically sly comment that Galba’s reign seemed at odds with his public service before then.

The governor of Hispania who led a revolt against Nero – effectively adding to a revolt against Nero in Gaul – resulting in the Senate proclaiming him emperor and Nero committing suicide.

The Gospel of Suetonius gives a very unflattering portrait of Galba as emperor – imperial office seems to have brought his worst qualities, “cruelty and avarice”, to the fore. Even worse, he came under the influence of a corrupt group of advisors – “to each of these brigands, each with his different vice…(he) entrusted himself and handed himself over as their tool”. Among other things, that resulted in seizing the property of Roman citizens and executing others as well as not paying the Praetorian Guard and soldiers who had fought the rebellion in Gaul.

The legions in Germania rose up against him, proclaiming the governor of Germania Inferior, Vitellius, as the emperor. The immediate problem for Galba came from much closer to home – his ally Otho, the governor of Lusitiania who had joined his revolt against Nero but had been angered by Galba nominating another successor. So Otho organized a conspiracy with the Praetorian Guard to kill Galba and enthrone himself.

If anything, he was worse than Galba, but at least had a briefer reign as he faced the revolt of the legions from Germania under Vitellius. A former companion of Nero – “addicted to luxury and pleasure to a degree remarkable even in a Roman” – he reinstated much of Nero’s legacy, such that the populace acclaimed him as “Nero Otho” and he emulated Nero by taking Nero’s catamite Sporus for himself. Sporus must have been quite something as the literal booty of imperial office in the Year of the Four Emperors.

Anyway, Otho’s forces lost to those of Vitellius and he committed suicide – which some Romans saw as a redeeming factor since he was still in command of a formidable force and it was seen that by it he sought to prevent civil war as well as further casualties.

As per Youtuber Spectrum – “You know, I respect this guy more than your average emperor. I mean, sure he usurped power for himself but when a civil war came, this dude had the decency to kill himself rather than just wasting more lives. Mad props, dude, you managed to not be completely sh*tty”.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

With his usual contrarian humor, Dovahhatty depicts Galba as a chad – perhaps not as tongue in cheek as his depictions of Caligula, Nero, Caracalla and Elagabalus as chads but getting there. His Otho as wokak is spot on, as is the delivery of his script upon finding out Galba had appointed another successor – “and Otho was LIVID!” (Obviously not the scene depicted in the screenshot for my feature image, which depicts a happier relationship between them, at least from Otho’s perspective).

 

RATING: 2 STARS**
D-TIER (LOW TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBASERS

 

 

(12) MACRINUS –
USUALLY THROWN IN WITH SEVERAN DYNASTY BUT REALLY NON-DYNASTIC
(217 – 218 AD: 1 YEAR 1 MONTH 28 DAYS)

 

With better luck or management, Macrinus may well have crossed over my Thrax-Pertinax line into special mentions for good emperors – and indeed might well be regarded as similar to Pertinax himself, attempting to introduce necessary reforms to salvage the empire but thwarted in the attempt.

A key distinction is that Pertinax was thwarted by that consistent bane of emperors, the Praetorian Guard intended as imperial bodyguard but often involved in their assassination – and also that he was not involved in the assassination of his predecessor Commodus (although no one would have cared given how bad Commodus was)

Macrinus on the other hand was not thwarted by the Praetorian Guard, he effectively was the Praetorian Guard as the praetorian prefect for his predecessor – and not only that, he conspired to assassinate his predecessor. Given that predecessor was Caracalla, an emperor pretty much as bad as Commodus, and that he did so preemptively to save his own life from execution by Caracalla, I’d say he gets bonus points for that.

He was accompanying Caracalla as part of the latter’s personal guard while in the eastern provinces preparing for a compaigan against the Parthians in Persia when he organized the assassination. After a few days, he proclaimed himself emperor – the first emperor not from the aristocratic senatorial class but the military equestrian class, as well as the first emperor never to set foot in Rome, not having the opportunity to do so in his brief reign (albeit longer than that of Pertinax).

That was because the reign of Caracalla left the empire with a number of problems similar to those left by that of Commodus for Pertinax – above all, that Caracalla’s profligate spending and preference for military belligerence had left its coffers empty, but also at war with several kingdoms, those kingdoms being Parthia, Armenia and Dacia.

Macrinus attempted to deal with these problems in a sensible way – securing peace with Parthia while restoring Armenia as a client kingdom of Rome as well as restoring peace with Dacia by releasing hostages.

“Macrinus showed a tendency to settle disputes by diplomacy and a reluctance to engage in military conflict” – although that may not have been so much his personal preference but forced upon him by Rome’s most dire problem, its acute fiscal situation. Caracalla’s profligate spending had mostly been on the army, among other things increasing their pay by a third, and Macrinus had no choice but to address this.

He did so in the softest way possible – attempting to return to the relative economic stability of the reign of Caracalla’s father Severus, revaluing the currency to match. He didn’t even attempt to reduce the payments for enlisted soldiers but simply reduced the pay of new recruits to the same level as under Severus.

However the army were having none of it – “the fiscal changes that Macrinus enacted might have been tenable had it not been for the military” – and effectively deserted him for his rival coughed up by the resurgent Severan dynasty and one of Rome’s worst emperors, Elagabalus. Although even then he evokes some sympathy, as he’d largely left the Severan matriarchs in peace rather than take action to preempt their conspiracy against him, however brutal that may have been.

As per Youtuber Spectrum, “don’t try to claim power when the family you usurped isn’t dead yet, odds are they’ll take advantage of you in a moment of weakness – it’s just basic, sensible Roman politics”.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yeah – Dovahhatty is having none of it either, with his depiction of Macrinus as memetic virgin, not surprisingly given his chadly depiction of Caracalla and the Severan dynasty in general (yes, even Elagabalus). Still, you have to give Dovahhatty’s Macrinus for his brazenly feigned surprise at the assassination of Caracalla as captioned in my feature image.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**
D-TIER (LOW TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKER

 

 

(13) GORDIAN III & SEVERUS ALEXANDER
(GORDIAN III – CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 238 – 244 AD: 5 YEARS 6 MONTHS)
(SEVERUS ALEXANDER – SEVERAN DYNASTY 222 – 235 AD: 13 YEARS 8 DAYS)

 

And now we come to two similar emperors, both effectively child emperors – indeed the first and second youngest sole emperors of a united empire respectively – puppeted by their mothers.

Gordian III was the weaker of the two. I mean, it was not exactly auspicious that he was chosen for one of Rome’s lamest “dynasties” – the so-called Gordian dynasty, as grandson of Gordian I and nephew of Gordian II, through his mother Gordiana.

You may recall the two preceding Gordians, father and son Gordian I and Gordian II, were proclaimed emperors by a mob in the province of Africa – a proclamation welcomed by the Senate desperate to put any imperial candidate between themselves and the wrath of Emperor Maximinus Thrax.

That left the Senate empty-handed when both Gordians were killed – Gordian I by his own hand – after the mob militia commanded by Gordian II was crushed by the professional military force of the only actual legion in the region, commanded by the governor of the neighboring province loyal to Thrax.

The Senate proclaimed two more emperors from their own members – Pupienus and Balbinus – to throw against Thrax, but that didn’t help as those two senators weren’t exactly popular. So they hit upon proclaiming as emperor the family member of those imperial candidates who had been popular with a mob. Enter Gordian III, under the watchful gaze of his mother Gordiana – uncannily echoing the end of the Severan dynasty with Severus Alexander before him.

So imagine everyone’s surprise – probably most of all that of Gordian himself – when Gordian found himself the sole emperor of the whole empire at the age of thirteen years, the youngest emperor to do so. Luckily for Pupienus and Balbinus, Thrax was killed by a mutiny of his own troops, but that luck was short-lived as they were then killed by the Praetorian Guard – leaving Gordian III as sole emperor.

And the young emperor didn’t have it easy as that’s when the Crisis of the Third Century really started, well, crisis-ing. There were severe earthquakes, the empire’s frontiers weakened against the Germanic tribes at the Rhine and the Danube, and worst of all, the Persians attacked the eastern provinces. And not those pansy Parthians either – these were the new and more dangerous Sassanids who had overthrown the Parthians, led by Shapur I.

Gordian I didn’t do too badly, mainly through his policy of clinging on desperately to Timesitheius, his praetorian prefect and new father-in-law, as Timesitheius became the de facto ruler of the empire – and a good one at that, leading a successful campaign against the Sassanids driving them back over the Euphrates into Persia. Gordian even joined the army and was preparing for an invasion of Sassanid Persia.

So the wheels came off Gordian’s reign when Timesitheius died in unclear circumstances. Gordian celebrated the success of the first campaign with a triumph and boasted of it to the Senate, so there was really nothing for it but to follow it up with a second campaign.

That went as well as you might expect. Actually, in fairness, it started much better than you might expect, with the Sassanids fighting back to halt the Roman advance to their capital Ctesiphon, but then it turned out as you might expect. Gordian was killed, possibly in a plot by his new praetorian prefect, Philip the Arab, or possibly in a major Roman defeat in battle – certainly something in the nature of defeat is suggested by the “shameful” peace with the Sassanids negotiated by Philip as Gordian’s successor, although it was not as bad as all that as Philip did manage to retain some of the territory taken by Timesitheus.

Gordian III as child puppet emperor for his mother Gordiana echoed Severus Alexander only a few years before him. Severus Alexander was not particularly bad, just weak, but his weakness was ground zero for the Crisis of the Third Century.

The historian Herodian portrayed him as a mother’s boy, which is unfair – he was more her puppet, as well as that of his grandmother Julia Maesa, who used him as the instrument of her coup against his predecessor and cousin, Elagabalus. He then ascended the imperial throne as a teenager and never outgrew his awkward teenage phase – or his reliance on his mother, Julia Mamaea.

Similarly to Gordian III relying on Timesitheius as the de facto ruler of the emperor, Severus Alexander didn’t do too badly in the domestic management of the empire, helped by capable advisors such as Ulpian or Cassius Dio. As usual for weak emperors, he came undone in the management of the empire’s military and foreign policy, starting with the rise of the new Sassanid empire in Persian (from the collapse of the preceding Parthian empire). Again in fairness, the Sassanids caused problems for many Roman emperors over the next four centuries or so.

Alexander was no Alexander the Great. He did respond with a threefold invasion of Persia, leading the main army in the centre while two other armies advanced to the north and south. He was widely perceived to have bugged out and retreated from the campaign – certainly, he did the latter after indecisive results (although his army had retaken some of Mesopotamia), with his army “wracked by indiscipline and disease”. The southern army was surrounded and destroyed by Sassanid horse-archers. The northern army did have some success, but suffered losses in that bane of armies – retreating in winter “due to a failure through incompetence to establish adequate supply lines”.

Despite the relative failure of his Persian campaign (and the mutiny of a legion which proclaimed a short-lived usurper as emperor), Alexander celebrated a triumph in Rome, which did not improve his army’s mood.

After Persia, trouble came from that usual other source – Germanic tribes crossing the Rhine and Danube. So Alexander, accompanied of course by his mother, went to the front line at the Rhine – but once there, took the advice of his mother to not get involved in battle, and worse, just buy the Germanic tribes off.

Spending money in tribute or other forms protection money to pay off adversaries from attacking imperial territory or avoid war was not unprecedented for the Roman empire, albeit more so in the later empire, and was probably not a bad option to literally buy time. Here it had the unfortunate appearance of paying the Germans rather than the legions, since Alexander was perceived to have skimped on the latter – “the emperor’s miserliness (partly the result of his mother’s greed)”.

And so Alexander and his mother found themselves overthrown and assassinated by what we would call a military coup – the last of the Severan dynasty and “the first emperor to be overthrown by military discontent on a wide scale”, something that would become depressingly familiar in the Crisis of the Third Century it kicked off.

As perYoutuber Spectrum, “he could have turned out into a good emperor but unfortunately his mother took too long to die”. Of the two emperors, he was clearly better or less weak than Gordian III, consistent with a longer reign.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yet two more emperors destined for wojak depiction, although it always amuses me that child wojaks never actually look younger, just older. Dovahhatty does right with deliberately parallel depictions of the two wojak emperors and their wojak mothers.

 

RATING: 2 STAR**
D-TIER (LOW TIER)
EMPIRE BREAKERS

 

(15) TETRARCHY –
SEVERUS II, MAXIMINUS II, LICINUS, MAXIMIAN & GALERIUS
(286-324 AD)

 

For all that the Tetrarchy ended the Crisis of the Third Century, it didn’t see the end of the empire’s civil wars or problems of imperial succession – just fewer of them as historian Adrian Goldsworthy pointed out, in a more muted form of the crisis. The Tetrarchy itself devolved into civil war, with Constantine as ultimate victor.

That’s because the Tetrarchy was a bit of a hot mess, albeit less of a mess than the Crisis, when Diocletian wasn’t around to hold the hands of his co-emperors (except of course for Constantius and his son Constantine) – mostly because of the quality of these guys as his co-emperors, almost as hopeless as the archetypal Crisis emperors, with most of them ultimately proving to be only foils to Constantine in one form or another.

It’s even something of a hot mess just to explain, as you have at least four emperors milling around – the empire administratively divided into eastern and western empires, with a senior emperor or augustus, and a junior emperor or caesar (as successor in waiting to the senior emperor) in each, not counting other claimants popping up.

So again I ranked them all within the one special mention, but here goes ranking them against each other from worst to best within the special mention.

 

SEVERUS II
(306-307: 8 MONTHS – WESTERN EMPIRE)

Really, I might well have ranked this guy among those short-lived emperors in my Crisis of the Third Century special mention.

Essentially a stooge of the emperor Galerius placing his nominees within the Tetrarchy to play it in his favor – Diocletian reportedly snorted at Galerius’ nomination of Severus “What! That dancer, that habitual drunkard who turns night into day and day into night?”

However, Galerius got Severus in as junior co-emperor or caesar to Constantius in the western empire – and Severus proved to be a foil to Constantine indirectly from the very outset, with Galerius nominating Severus as senior western emperor or augustus to trump Constantine when Constantius died and the British legions acclaimed Constantine as emperor. Constantine accepted the position of junior emperor or caesar in the westen empire.

That didn’t work out too well for Severus, who proceeded to get trounced by the revolt of Maxentius claiming the throne in Italy with the support of his father Maximian. Severus’ army deserted him to Maxentius when he besieged the latter in Rome, he fled to Ravenna, surrended to Maximian and was killed thereafter.

 

MAXIMINUS II / MAXIMINUS “DAZA”
(310-313: 3 YEARS – EASTERN EMPIRE)

 

Somewhat better than Severus and similarly a placeman of Galerius, albeit with a closer connection as the nephew of Galerius, he divided the eastern empire between his co-emperor Licinus and himself.

And proved to be something of a foil for Constantine, albeit indirectly through the latter’s alliance with Licinus. When Constantine and Licinus began to make common cause, Maximinus allied with the usurper Maxentius in Italy of all people. He then got utterly trounced by Licinus in battle and fled defeat to die ignominously.

 

LICINUS
(308-321: 15 YEARS 10 MONTHS 8 DAYS – WESTERN AND THEN EASTERN EMPIRE)

 

Speaking of Licinus, he was a reasonably shrewd if ruthless operator – until of course along came Constantine. Part of that ruthlessness was seeking out and killing relatives of the Tetrarchs, including Diocletian’s wife and daughter.

Licinus was another colleague of Galerius, who essentially elevated him to senior western emperor or augustus to replace Severus and to oppose Maxentius in Italy, albeit he was also essentially limited to the provinces under his immediate command in the Balkans. Not for long though, because he added the European part of the eastern empire to his domain (which was officially the western empire) when Maximinus II divided up the eastern empire with him when Galerius died.

Licinus and Constantine allied with each other against Maximinus and Maxentius. Licinius trounced Maximinus in the east and Constantine trounced Maxentius in Italy – which greatly simplified the Tetrarchy leaving the last two emperors standing, with Constantine as sole western emperor and Licinus as sole eastern emperor. No prizes for guessing how that turned out – the inevitable civil war between them, albeit with pauses of peace or treaties, which Constantine ultimately won and had Licinus executed after tha latter attempted to regain power with support from…the Goths. The barbarian horror of it all!

 

MAXIMIAN
(286-305: 19 YEARS 1 MONTH – WESTERN EMPIRE)
(306-308: 2 YEARS – ITALY BUT I’M NOT REALLY COUNTING THIS BOTCHED USURPATION)

 

Ah – Maximian, the archetypal emperor of the Tetrarchy who really was a bit of a disaster without Diocletian holding him by the hand, despite basically being Diocletian’s main partner as co-emperor, augustus of the western empire while Diocletian was augustus of the eastern empire.

I mean he just seemed to go from one royal screw-up to the next, particularly towards the end – which seems to make Diocletian acclaiming him as the Hercules to Diocletian’s Jupiter something of a joke. In fairness, Maximian was a competent soldier – the origin of Diocletian giving him the title of Hercules as the brawn to Diocletian’s brains – particularly against the German barbarians menacing the western empire (and also in Africa against the barbarians raiding the empire there).

Where to begin? Well, it all pretty much went downhill for Maximian when his naval commander Carausius rebelled and claimed Britain and coastal Gaul for the so-called Britannic Empire. Maximian botched the naval invasion to restore it to the Roman empire, losing the fleet in the process and thereafter had something of a tacit truce with Carausius. However, Diocletian was having none of that and sent in Constantius as junior emperor or caesar of the western empire to clean up Maximian’s mess.

It gets worse – after Diocletian made Maximian join him in abdicating and retiring from their position as augusti, Maximian’s worthless son Maxentius revolted to usurp the throne in Italy, so of course Maximian joined the revolt as co-emperor to his son, only to fall out with his son and be forced from Italy. He sought refuge with Constantine – “the only court that would still accept him” – only to unsuccessfully rebel against Constantine and be left with no other option than suicide.

 

GALERIUS
(305-311: 6 YEARS – EASTERN EMPIRE)

 

In fairness, I might have ranked Galerius somewhat higher, as he led a pretty good campaign against the Sassanid Persians prior to his reign as emperor – albeit characteristically after initially botching it and being bailed out by Diocletian.

After Diocletian abdicated, Galerius became senior emperor or augustus of the eastern empire (with Constantius as augustus of the western empire). Galerius tried to mastermind the Tetrarchy in the same way as Diocletian but just couldn’t pull it off.

Indeed, his efforts saw its most confusing array yet, with more emperors than before or subsquently, in what might well have been called the Year of Seven Emperors – Galerius himself as augustus in the east, Maximinus II as caesar in the east, Licinus as augustus of the west in the Balkans, Constantine now with Maximian in train in the west, Maxentius in Italy and Domitius Alexander in Africa.

Also, like his stooge Severus, he failed to suppress the revolt of Maxentius in Italy, his campaign making little headway until he was forced to withdraw, barely persuading his troops not to desert him – although unlike Severus at least he was able to withdraw with his troops and life intact.

He also went all-in on Diocletian’s persecution of Christians – indeed being attributed as the driving force behind it – despite having to subsequently admit its failure.

However, at least he was one of the few leaders of the Tetarchy not to die in its civil wars – instead dying horribly of disease.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yeah – these guys were a bunch of wojaks, so Dovahhatty depicts them as such. Except Galerius and Maximinus II – he depicted them as that bear meme character.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**
D-TIER (LOW TIER)
EMPIRE DEBASERS

 

 

(16) VALENS –
VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE
(364-378 AD: 14 YEARS 4 MONTHS 12 DAYS)

 

Emperor Valens – the name synonymous with the greatest defeat of the Roman Empire, the one that heralded the proverbial Fall of the Roman Empire, the Battle of Adrianople against the Goths in 378 AD. Gothicus Minimus, amirite?

As such, it might be surprising that I rank him so well, albeit still among special mentions for ‘bad’ emperors but towards the tail end or dividing line between good and bad emperors. To be honest, I did consider him ranking him worse – even perhaps in the top ten worst emperors – but ultimately considered that not to be a fair ranking.

For one thing, it seemed that there were patently worse emperors. For another, it seemed to rank his defeat and death at the Battle of Adrianople, as catastrophic at it was for the empire, disproportionately against his whole reign, although it obviously had to cost him a ranking among the ‘good’ emperors.

After all, look at the length of that reign – over fourteen years, which is pretty impressive among Roman emperors. What’s more, he “continually faced threats both external and internal” during that reign.

Near the outset of his reign, he faced serious insurrection in the form of the usurper Procopius, which initially seemed so dire that Valens almost succumbed to despair, considering abdication or even suicide, before rallying to defeat the usurper.

That left the external threats, which were bad enough as characteristically the eastern empire faced them on two fronts – the Goths in the west and the perennial Persians in the east, as well as additional conflicts with the Saracens and the Isaurians.

For most of his reign, Valens was focused on the threat from the Sassanid Persians in the east. Valens actually bested the Goths in his first Gothic War from 367-368 AD, taking the title Gothicus Maximus, but was happy to come to moderate terms of peace to focus on campaigning against the Sassanids and other eastern conflicts.

Which brings us to the second Gothic War from 376 AD and that disastrous defeat in the Battle of Adrianople. Although Valens made the decision to settle select Goths – those led by Fritigern – in the empire as the Huns advanced, no doubt prompted by their potential manpower for the army, he was in the east at the time and wasn’t responsible for the mismanagement of the settlement or extortion of food prompting revolt by the Goths. That was the fault of corrupt Roman officials.

So now Valens had to deal with the mess mostly made by others, returning from the east to campaign against the Goths. And yes – he then proceeded to make mistakes, foremost among them not awaiting the reinforcements from the western empire under Gratian, although I understand he may have been misled by low estimates of the strength of the Goths.

He continued to compound his mistakes with poor tactics leading up to the critical battle, although I understand some of those were the product of advisors or units acting prematurely, but even then might have pulled off a victory or at least avoided defeat but for good luck and timing on the Gothic side with the surprise arrival of the Gothic cavalry.

Or yes – had he been a better general or military commander, such as his brother Valentinian. Unfortunately, he was mediocre. “Utterly undistinguished” as historian A.H.M. Jones characterized him – he “possessed no military ability”. Historian J.B. Bury was even more caustic about the Battle of Adrianople – “a disaster and disgrace that need not have occurred”.

So you can’t get past the role of Valens in leading the empire to defeat at the Battle of Adrianople – “to have died in so inglorious a battle has thus come to be regarded as the nadir of an unfortunate career”.

“This is especially true because of the profound consequences of Valens’ defeat. Adrianople spelled the beginning of the end for Roman territorial integrity in the late Empire and this fact was recognized even by contemporaries”.

However, even critics such as Jones who characterized him as “utterly undistinguished” conceded he was a “conscientious and capable administrator”, reforming the currency with his brother Valentinian and relieving the oppressive burden of taxation on the population – as well as building the Aqueduct of Valens in Constantinople, longer than any in Rome. In religious matters, he favored compromise between Nicene Christianity and other sects, as well as interfering little in the affairs of pagans.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Another emperor best depicted as a wojak – falling short of his chad brother Valentinian…but Dovahhatty obviously has enough sympathy for him not to depict him as virgin, as opposed to his advisors on the eve of the Battle of Adrianople. Speaking of that battle, it’s one of my favorite animated sequences in the series – and the depiction of Valens going from smug victory to shock at the arrival of the Goth cavalry revealed by a flash of lightning is priceless.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**
D-TIER (LOW TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKER

 

 

(17) CONSTANS & GRATIAN
(CONSTANS – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY 337-350 AD: 12 YEARS 4 MONTHS)
(GRATIAN – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY 375-383: 7 YEARS 9 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

And now we come to two emperors with uncannily similar reigns, despite being separated by forty years or so as well as from successive dynasties.

Both succeeded great emperors (for whom the dynasties were named) as their sons, both began as child emperors in circumstances where others had designs on them as puppets, both were western emperors who were reasonably robust in defending the western empire, and both were usurped and killed when their legions deserted them due to them ‘favoring’ their barbarian soldiers in suggestive ways. Also both courted religious controversy while favoring Nicene Christianity.

Constans was one of the three sons of Constantine who each inherited a third of the empire as co-emperors from their father after his death in 337. Constans inherited the middle third of the empire including Italy and Rome itself, but as ward of his older brother Constantine II because he was a teen at the time.

As we saw in my Top 10 Worst Roman Emperors. Constantine II tried to stand over his younger brother, until unsuccessfully attempting to usurp Constans altogether when Constans came of age and asserted his independence, being killed when ambushed – by the advance forces of Constans, not even the main force.

Constans’ reign commenced in reasonably robust fashion. He had defeated the Sarmatians in a campaign as a teenage co-emperor before defeating the attempt of his brother Constantine II to usurp him, adding the latter’s realm of the western part of the empire to his own of the middle part of the empire around Italy. He then ruled the west in energetic fashion, campaigning successfully against the Franks and visiting Britain, probably also on campaign – the last emperor to do so in the classical empire (or at all, even counting the eastern empire, apart from Manuel II Palaiologos).

Relations with his remaining brother, Constantius II as his co-emperor in the eastern empire, were somewhat strained – including by religious tension as Constans favored Nicene Christianity over the Arian Christianity of Constantius. Constans also banned pagan sacrifices.

And then things went wrong, as he was successfully usurped and killed for being entirely too gay by a complete outsider to the Constantian dynasty, Magnentius, such that he had to be avenged by Constantius II. No, really – the surviving sources accuse him of misrule and homosexuality, albeit probably influenced by the propaganda of Magnentius’ faction.

In particular, he developed a reputation for cruelty and misrule as well as that he “indulged in great vices” and scandalous behaviour, unduly favoring the handsome barbarian members of his, ahem, select bodyguard, while also being accused of gratifying his tastes with young barbarian hostages.

How much of that is true is another matter, but certainly something went very wrong for his lack of popularity and for his legions to desert him, such that he found himself without any support beyond his immediate household when faced with the imperial claim made by the general Magnentius and had to flee for his life. He attempted to flee to Hispania but was cornered and killed seeking sanctuary in a temple in Gaul in a location named for his grandmother Helena, thus fulfilling an alleged prophecy that he would die in his grandmother’s arms.

Gratian was one of two sons of Valentinian, becoming senior emperor at the age of sixteen when his father died in 375. I’ve already included his half-brother Valentinian II in a previous special mention, but Valentinian II was younger still as a mere child and was only co-emperor in name only over essentially the same middle provinces Constans had initially ruled, with Gratian ruling the western empire himself, with their uncle Valens ruling as eastern emperor.

I say ruling the western empire himself, but his rule was effectively sought to be puppeted by his tutor Ausonius, who became quaester and along with Merobaudes, the western empire’s magister militum of Frankish origin, the real power behind the throne. They prevented Gratian from travelling much, partly to conceal his youth from the populace.

And then disaster struck in 378 AD, with none other than the defeat and death of Valens at the notorious Battle of Adrianople against the Goths – albeit through no fault of Gratian’s, who had been en route to reinforce Valens with his western army before Valens had jumped the gun to fight the Goths without western reinforcements. Gratian had also been delayed by fighting with the barbarian Alans that had also invaded the Balkans – note that tribal name because it pops up again in his downfall. It was also alleged that Merobaudes had delayed or withheld troops, although the latter seems to have been reasonably necessary for a victory over the Alamanni taking advantage of troop withdrawals to invade Gaul.

The defeat and death of Valens left Gratian as sole emperor of the whole empire, but with the Goths now rampaging unchecked in the Balkans, Gratian decided he needed an eastern co-emperor and appointed Theodosius, thereby starting the rot of the Theodosian dynasty that saw in the fall of the empire.

Jointly with Theododius, Gratian touted Nicene Christianity as the only official religion – but down on the surviving remnants of paganism more forcefully than Theodosius, issuing edicts closing down pagan temples or shrines and confiscating their funds for the treasury, above all removing the statue of the winged goddess of Victory from the Senate.

In the meantime, Gratian had won victories against invading barbarian tribes of Alamanni or Goths in 380 AD, but again found himself at war with the Alamanni in 383 AD. During that war, he alienated his army by his favoritism to his barbarian Alan deserters whom he had made his bodyguard. I told you to remember that name – although I can’t help thinking of it as some barbarian guy named Alan. He was also accused of keeping bad company (Alan!) and neglecting the affairs of state to have fun.

And so his army deserted him to the usurper Magnus Maximus, who had raised the standard of revolt in Britain and invaded Gaul to advance a competing imperial claim. Similarly to Constans, Gratian was forced to flee, only to be pursued and killed in Gaul by forces loyal to Magnus Maximus, leaving his half-brother Valentinian II as sole western emperor in contest with Magnus Maximus – as we saw when I ranked Valentinian III among these special mentions.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Dovahhatty obviously plays into the historical sources for Constans being usurped as entirely too gay – with a rare departure from the standard chad-wojak-virgin triumvirate and instead featuring Constans as the stylized perfect girlfriend meme (with captions to match). His father Constantine even confuses him for a daughter.

Gratian fares better as a wojak – but of course far short of his chad father Valentinian.

 

RANKING: 2 STARS**
D-TIER (LOW TIER)
EMPIRE DEBAUCHERS

 

 

 

(18) THEODOSIUS II & LEO
(THEODOSIUS II – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY 408-450 AD: 42 YEARS 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)
(LEO: LEONID DYNASTY 457-474 AD: 16 YEARS 11 MONTHS 11 DAYS)

 

The emperors who presided over the eastern empire for most of the period the western empire crumbled and fell – certainly the emperors with the longest reigns in that period.

That’s perhaps not coincidental in the case of Theodosius II, who succeeded his father Arcadius as eastern emperor. In fairness, while not as weak and useless as the others born into the Theodosian dynasty (as opposed to those who married into it, Constantius III and Marcian), he was still mostly weak and useless, albeit better than his father, sleepwalking his way through as eastern emperor while the western empire fell apart.

That impressively long reign becomes a lot less impressive than it seems as he became sole emperor as a child of 7 years with the death of his father in 408 (although he had been previously been proclaimed co-emperor as an infant of 9 months). Fortunately, he also inherited the praetorian prefect Anthemius from his father, who administered the government and supervised the construction of Constantinople’s defensive walls named for the emperor, the Theodosian Walls.

Unfortunately, Anthemius disappears from the historical record in 414, consistent perhaps with being dismissed, retiring or dying of natural causes. Thereafter, Theodosius was constantly pushed around by his sister Pulcheria, his wife Aelia Eudocia (after his marriage in 421), and various literal court eunuchs as well as the Germanic military commanders of the empire.

Hence resulting in his passive imperial administration. The one time he actively intervened in the western empire was perhaps the one time he should have left things well alone – to reclaim the western imperial throne from Joannes after the death of Honorius in 423 for the even more weak and useless member of his dynasty, Valentinian III,

In fairness, the eastern empire had its hands full on the usual two fronts – in the east with the Sassanid Persians and in the west with the Huns, which among other things preempted a more substantial intervention in the western empire sending an expeditionary force to reclaim north Africa when it fell to the Vandals.

Theodosius did best in the war with the Sassanids in 421-422 – that is, ending up with nothing, a stalemate with no change to the status quo between them. The Romans were forced to make peace with the Sassanids to deal with the Huns – who menaced Constantinople as well as raiding throughout the Balkans and destroying two Roman armies during his reign. Theodosius mostly adopted the policy of throwing money at them in tribute until they went away again, paying increasingly exorbitant amounts in gold as tribute.

Theodosius died in 450 from falling off his horse – he was succeeded by Marcian, who married into the dynasty by marrying Pulcheria and was far more robust towards the Huns, promptly stopping payments of tribute and taking effective military action against them instead.

Leo on the other hand may not have seemed too auspicious upon being proclaimed emperor after Marcian, a low ranking military officer chosen by Aspar, the Germanic supreme military commander who was the real power behind the throne similar to Ricimer in the western empire and who had also elevated Marcian to emperor.

No doubt Aspar intended Leo to be a puppet emperor, but instead Leo became increasingly independent and out-maneuvred Aspar, culminating in the assassination of Aspar (and others) in 471 and the end of the Gothic or Germanic domination of the eastern empire – earning Leo the title of Leo the Butcher.

Leo also took more robust if perhaps mistimed action to save the western empire – mistimed in that he did not do so during the reign of Majorian, the western emperor with the best prospects of reviving the western empire, but afterwards when there was little real prospect of saving it, notwithstanding Leo’s support for his imperial candidates Anthemius and Julius Nepos.

Indeed, Leo might well have crossed the line into being ranked as good emperor but for the disastrous defeat of his naval expedition to reclaim north Africa from the Vandals in the Battle of Cape Bon in 468 AD – a defeat that might well be ranked with the defeat of Valens in the Battle of Adrianople, even if the defeat was primarily the fault of the expedition’s commander and Leo’s brother-in-law Basiliscus.

Sadly, that’s got to cost him, not least in its consequence for both halves of the empire – completely dashing any last hopes for the western empire and effectively bankrupting the eastern empire for the balance of his reign and beyond.

Leo died of dysentry in 474 AD, to be succeeded by emperors in brief and quick succession – his grandson Leo II, Zeno, that slime Basiliscus, and Zeno again for a longer reign, just in time for the last western emperor to be deposed and the proverbial fall of the Roman Empire.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT

 

Dovahhatty depicts them both as wojaks- with Theodosius II the more world-weary style of wojak and Leo more energetic, helped by his beard.

 

Dovahhatty also depicts them in reasonably favorable terms, reflecting that they at least preserved the eastern empire, even if they failed in other respects – above all preserving the western empire, although to be fair that was not their primary responsibility and was probably doomed by the time they actively reigned anyway, especially Leo. Dovahhatty seems to omit one of the most favorable aspects of Leo’s reign – eliminating Aspar and the Gothic domination of the eastern court.

 

For all these reasons, I’ve decided to rank Theodosius II and especially Leo as C-tier or mid-tier, coming very close to the dividing line between bad and good emperors, although their respective failures just keep them on the bad side of the dividing line.

 

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

 

 

(19) THEODOSIUS –
THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE – BRIEFLY WHOLE EMPIRE)
379 – 395 AD (15 YEARS 11 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

I know Dovahhatty does something of a hatchet job on Theodosius but I tend to agree with his caption for Theodosius – “I’m busy thinking how to be horrible at everything and yet still be remembered as ‘great'” (in marked contrast to Dovahhatty’s admiration for Theodosius’ father, Theodosius the Elder or Count Theodosius, with which I also tend to agree).

And yes – my understanding is that “great” was used in Roman imperial titles essentially to mean the first of his name as emperor, particularly to distinguish them from other emperors of the same name – so you have Valentinian and Constantine as the Great, but also Theodosius and Leo.

And yes – similarly to my Pertinax-Thrax line separating good from bad emperors, we come to the first of two emperors right on my dividing line separating bad from good emperors.

I anticipate that it will be controversial ranking both emperors as ‘bad’, albeit right on the threshold of being decent – as others might rank them as ‘good’, indeed probably much higher than either Pertinax or Maximinus Thrax, even if their reigns had mixed or problematic aspects.

So back to Theodosius, although Dovahhatty takes a lot of historical license overstating the case against him, it coincides with what I’ve always thought of him.

And I just can’t forgive him for inflicting the worst dynasty on the classical empire – the Theodosian dynasty. And inflict it he did – immediately in the form of his two sons as imperial heirs, Arcadius on the eastern empire and Honorius on the western empire, ensuring the permanent division of the empire and the fall of the latter.  Theodosius was – briefly – the last emperor of the whole empire, both western and eastern halves.

Let’s start with where Dovahhatty overstates his case – the western emperor Gratian proclaimed Theodosius as eastern emperor during the ongoing Gothic War of 376-382 AD in the wake of the disastrous defeat and death of the preceding eastern emperor Valens in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD.

Theodosius had few good options as the new eastern emperor essentially thrown a hospital pass by Gratian. The forces available to the eastern empire were too depleted, not least by the losses at Adrianople, to drive the Goths out – and although Theodosius was able to ultimately win the Gothic War and pacify the Goths, he had to settle for, well, settling the Goths within the empire.

As Dovahhatty acidly observes with Theodosius “completely caving in”, “the Goths were allowed to settle inside the empire, under their own leaders…fully armed and exempt from ever being Romanized and thus civilized, a complete betrayal of Rome’s oldest tradition”.

One doesn’t have to go quite so far as that to acknowledge that “although his pacification of the Goths secured peace for the Empire during his lifetime, their status as an autonomous entity within Roman borders caused problems for succeeding emperors”. From here on, no longer were the barbarians at the gates, they were inside the gates.

In other words, it was the institution of the foederati system on an unprecedented scale – where the Romans settled Germanic tribes as effectively independent states within the empire on the basis of a treaty or foedus to lend military forces to the empire. Of course, the Germanic tribes had already become the lifeblood for recruitment to the Roman army and even as its commanders, but the foederati represented a significant downgrade, not least in territory and taxation revenue lost within the empire.

It may have been the best of the bad options at the time but one can’t help feeling that Theodosius was kicking the can down the road – and ironically it was the western empire that had to pick it up next century, even though Theodosius settled the Goths within the eastern empire. In this – kicking the can down the road for the empire to pick up later, even if it was the best of bad options – Theodosius resembled the other emperor holding my dividing line between bad and good emperors. For the other emperor, picking up that can came with the Crisis of the Third Century – with Theodosius, it came with no less than the fall of the western empire.

However, as I said, Theodosius had few good choices. The western empire under Gratian provided little assistance, something that would rebound to bite the western empire back, particularly when the Visigoths moved from the eastern to the western empire. Theodosius had to resort to desperate recruiting measures to fill the ranks of the army – conscripting farmers and miners, as well as Germanic auxiliaries including the Goths themselves, who after the settlement (and to some extent before in the form of deserters and mercenaries) were to be one of the few reliable sources of manpower for the army. Loyal and competent Germanic officers, typically the Frankish officers like Arbogast that became the force behind the throne in the western empire in the fourth century (as the Goths themselves were to become in the eastern empire in the fifth), helped turn the tide of the Gothic War to force the Goths into a treaty.

And thereafter, the Visigoths were arguably among the more reliable Germanic foederati or allies for the Romans, at least for their crucial role in helping Aetius win against the Huns in Gaul. More immediately for Theodosius, “by the start of his reign, much of Eastern Roman Empire’s military was devastated and Goths–who were more nuanced than savage barbarians and too divided to serve under a single force in real-life–were (the) only military available in such short notice”.

It’s just that Theodosius seemed set upon achieving the worst of all worlds – with a policy seemingly designed for an alliance with the Goths but alienating them instead, particularly the Visigoths and the Visigothic leader Alaric, who would then descend upon the western empire and sack Rome.

It is arguable that an effective alliance with the Goths might have had a similar result to the revival of Rome under the Illyrian emperors – Theodosius even settled the Visigoths in Illyria.

However, Theodosius exploited the Visigoths under Alaric as the Roman equivalent of cannon fodder – legion fodder – for expendable casualties in the Battle of the Frigidus against a western usurper, the puppet of his former Frankish commander Arbogast, whom he himself had appointed as supreme military commander of the western empire. “Despite losing many thousands of his men”, Alaric “received little recognition from Rome and left the Roman army disappointed” – subsequently, “as the leader of the only effective field force remaining in the Balkans, he sought Roman legitimacy, never quite achieving a position acceptable to himself or to the Roman authorities”.

The Battle of the Frigidus prompts to mind the other major criticism of Theodosius – that he didn’t just simply foist his two useless sons on each half of the empire, but that he did so “defending his own dynastic interests at the cost of two civil wars”, intervening in the western empire on two occasions.

The first was in 388 when Magnus Maximus usurped the western emperor Gratian. Granted on that occasion he installed Gratian’s half-brother Valentinian II as western emperor, but essentially as puppet of Arbogast – and probably mere placeholder for his own son Honorius.

The second was in 394 when Arbogast proclaimed Eugenius as emperor after the (suspicious) death of Valentinian II, resulting in the decisive Battle of the Frigidus and Theodosius becoming emperor of the whole empire, to be succeeded by his two sons.

Both civil wars were disastrous for the empire, particularly the latter and particularly for the western empire, severely depleting the manpower of the army to repel or resist barbarian invaders thereafter.

On top of that, there’s the controversy of the infamous Massacre of Thessalonica, where civilians were killed by Roman troops – or a “Gothic horde” as Dovahhatty characterized them, although the sources are not clear as to this or the role of Theodosius in the massacre.

There’s also the controversy of him upholding Nicene Christianity as the official religion stamping out Arian Christians and pagans, although again his role in doing so is not clear and may well be overstated.

However, there remains his damned dynasty – “His two sons proved weak and incapable rulers, and they presided over a period of foreign invasions and court intrigues, which heavily weakened the empire”. And it didn’t stop there as his descendants would rule the empire for the next six decades, ensuring its enduring division – and the fall of the western empire.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Really, I’ve been clear about my agreement with Dovahhatty from the outset of this feature – while he does overstate the case against Theodosius, I tend to agree with his caption about Theodosius thinking how to be horrible at everything and still be remembered as great. I particularly like how he has Theodosius grovelling to Goths (and the Church), much to the disdain of Stilicho.

 

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

 

 

 

(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

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS

(SPECIAL MENTION):

TIER LIST

 

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

 

(1) VITELLIUS

(2) DIDIUS JULIANUS

(3) GETA

(4) TREBONIANUS GALLUS

(5) CARINUS

(6) BASILISCUS

(7) LAST WESTERN EMPERORS –

LIBIUS SEVERUS

OLYBRIUS

GLYCERIUS

ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS

JULIUS NEPOS

AVITUS

ANTHEMIUS

(8) VALENTINIAN II

(9) CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY EMPERORS –

BALBINUS

PUPIENUS

GORDIAN I

GORDIAN II

QUINTILLUS

FLORIANUS

AEMILIAN

NUMERIAN

 

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

(10) JOVIAN

(11) OTHO & GALBA

(12) MACRINUS

(13) GORDIAN III & SEVERUS ALEXANDER

(14) PHILIP THE ARAB & DECIUS

(15) TETRARCHY –

SEVERUS II

MAXIMINUS II

LICINUS

MAXIMIAN

GALERIUS

(16) VALENS

(17) CONSTANS & GRATIAN

 

C-TIER (MID TIER)

 

(18) THEODOSIUS II & LEO

(19) THEODOSIUS

(20) SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS