But wait – there’s more!

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

Yes – it’s usurping time! Or at least, those imperial claimants generally generally labelled as usurpers. That term is bit elastic or a question of degree for Roman emperors, with the primary distinction being those who succeeded in their imperial claim and those who did not.

“A large number of emperors commonly considered as legitimate began their rule as usurpers, revolting against the previous legitimate emperor”.

Usurpation and civil war tended to be the order of the day for the Roman empire. While the imperial government itself was rarely called into question, “individual emperors often faced unending challenges in the form of usurpation and perpetual civil wars”.

“From the rise of Augustus, the first Roman emperor, in 27 BC to the sack of Rome in AD 455, there were over a hundred usurpations or attempted usurpations (an average of one usurpation or attempt about every four years). From the murder of Commodus in 192 until the fifth century, there was scarcely a single decade without succession conflicts and civil war”.

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

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

Indeed, I’ve ranked eighteen such usurpers or other dubiously imperial claimants in sixteen dishonorable mentions (obviously ranking two together in a couple of dishonorable mention entries where they were essentially similar or close enough for the one entry).

 

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.

 

 

 

 

DIADUMENIAN – NON-DYNASTIC (SEVERAN DYNASTY)

(MAY – JUNE 218 AD: LESS THAN 1 MONTH)

 

Speaking of coins, here’s one for a child emperor otherwise too insignificant for Dovahhatty.

It may seem uncharitable to rank this child co-emperor as dishonorable mention, even if by unnumbered entry without ranking, but I just can’t place him anywhere else even if his pathetic reign as ephemeral emperor was not really his fault. Equally, I’m not going to rank him as a child. Not to mention his ‘reign’ was so brief and pathetic, Dovahhatty doesn’t even mention him.

Diadumenian was the son of Macrinus, the praetorian prefect who plotted the assassination of his predecessor Caracalla and proclaimed himself emperor. When Elagabalus led a resurgent Severan dynasty in revolt against Macrinus, Macrinus proclaimed Diadumenian – then nine years of age – as co-emperor, a position Diadumenian held for less than a month before Macrinus was defeated in battle by Elagabalus. Diadumenian was sent by his father to the Sassanid Persian court in an attempt to ensure his safety, but he was captured and executed en route. The Senate declared damnatio memoriae for both Macrinus and Diadumenian.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

As I said, Dovahhatty didn’t do him at all – that’s how insignificant he was! Also, I suppose it’s one thing to have the victorious resurgent Severan dynasty under Elagabalus kill Macrinus, it’s another to have them kill a kid.

 

RATING: X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

 

 

 

PHILIP II – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JULY / AUGUST 247 AD – SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 249 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS)

 

Another child emperor, Philip II or Philip the Younger was the son of Philip the Arab and was killed at 12 years of age, hence yet another unnumbered and unranked entry. He was his father’s heir, proclaimed as co-emperor, only to run afoul of the same fate as his father killed by a rival imperial claimant. The only difference is that that there is some uncertainty of who killed Philip II, although the consensus of moden historians seems to be that the Praetorian Guard killed him after his father was killed.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT

 

I do like how Dovahhatty makes him a younger wojak version of his father, but he looks a little older than he should!

 

RATING: X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

 

 

 

LEO II – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(18 JANUARY – NOVEMBER 474 AD: 10 MONTHS)

 

Another child emperor, Leo II is the exception to my rule of dishonorable mention in that he was actually a legitimate emperor rather than usurper or other dubious claimant – indeed as the second emperor of the Leonid dynasty in the eastern empire that outlasted the fall of the western empire. So bonus points all round.

Except…he was sadly insignificant due to his youth (and corresponding lack of rule in his own name), capped by death still as a child. Leo I nominated him as heir, but only because his father Zeno – married to the daughter of Leo I and hence Leo I’s son-in-law – was unpopular.

Becoming increasingly ill, Leo I skipped over his son-in-law Zeno for his grandson Leo II as heir – Leo II was first made caesar or heir to the throne in October 472 AD, then proclaimed as augustus or co-emperor with Leo II in 17 November 473 AD.

Hence when Leo I died of dysentery on 18 January 474 AD, Leo II ascended the throne as sole emperor, but by 29 January 474 the eastern Roman Senate made his father Zeno co-emperor, as Leo II was too young to sign documents or do much of anything really.

And he was able to do even less when, at the age of 7 years and a brief reign of 10 months (although sources vary slightly), he died – of undocumented cause but probably natural, not unusually for the high child mortality rate at the time.

So rather than rank him against other legitimate emperors, I’ve included him in my dishonorable mentions, with an unnumbered and unranked entry as it just doesn’t seem fair otherwise, particularly as his youth and death from disease were no fault of his own.

Shout-out to Marcus, son and (brief) co-emperor of the emperor who (briefly) usurped Zeno, Basiliscus, before Zeno was able to usurp the throne back from Basiliscus. Marcus appears to have met the same grim fate of Basiliscus when Zeno reclaimed the throne (just in time to preside over the eastern empire when the western empire fell). It’s a shout-out because other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Basiliscus, he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Again, Dovahhatty doesn’t mention him, despite featuring Leo and Zeno – hence the coin as feature image. (Dovahhatty also omits Basiliscus and Marcus as emperors, although he features Basiliscus – without naming him – as the naval commander who lost at the Battle of Cape Bon against the Vandals).

Presumably, it was just too sad to mention a child emperor who died at the age of 7 years without doing anything.

 

RATING: X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

(1) PRISCUS ATTALUS –
USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)
(409 AD – 410 AD: LESS THAN 1 YEAR)

 

You know – this one surprised me in ranking him as my worst dishonorable mention.

After all, he usurped the Theodosian dynasty and its worst emperor Honorius at that, so you’d think I’d be all on board for him but I just can’t forgive him the circumstances. Foremost among them being that it wasn’t really him doing the usurping – he was a Senator acclaimed as emperor by the Visigothic leader Alaric just prior to sacking Rome as a puppet against Honorius, the first western emperor to be raised to that office by a barbarian and precursor of the last western Roman emperors to come.

And as easily deposed and stripped of his imperial regalia by Alaric as the latter alternated between beseiging Rome and seeking to achieve his aims through negotiations with Honorius instead.

Or rather, I might have been able to forgive him, given that Attalus did show some signs of trying to be more than a mere puppet, if it hadn’t happened twice – and he’d had the good sense to know when to call it quits, as he was again acclaimed as emperor in Gaul by Alaric’s successor Atalphaus, only to again be deserted by his Visigoth patrons. This time, he didn’t get off so easy, as he was captured by Honorius’ men and exiled to an unknown fate, although it might have been more pleasant than he deserved since he was exiled to the Aeolian Islands.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

He only appears briefly but Dovahhatty indeed does him right, as one of the more pathetic wojaks.

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (F TIER)

 

 

(2) VOLUSIANUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(AUGUST 251 AD – AUGUST 253 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

Surprisingly not a usurper but one of those emperors of “varying ascribed status” in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors, Volusianus couldn’t even achieve his uselessness on his own, but as the son and junior co-emperor of that equally useless embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century, Trebonianus Gallus.

Trebonianus Gallus first acclaimed his son as caesar, then as co-emperor or co-augustus – possibly murdering the preceding co-emperor Hostilian, the son of his predecessor Decius, to do so, at least according to Roman historian Zosimus.

Anyway, Volusianus was equally as weak and useless as his father, but without even achieving his imperial position for himself – “both chose to stay in Rome rather than confront the invasions” of Goths and Sassanid Persians that were overrunning large parts of the empire.

The governor of the province of Moesia, Aemilian, at least succeeded in repelling the Goths – and for that his soldiers proclaimed him emperor. He marched on Rome with his legions. Characteristically, the father and son team of Gallus and Volusianus called for help from someone useful, the future emperor Valerian as military commander in Gaul, but Aemilian got to them first – or rather, their own troops did, mutinying and killing both of them so as to avoid battle with Aemilian.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Yes – “now son, may we rule long and incompetently together”.

Well, at least they didn’t rule long

 

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

 

 

 

(3) HOSTILIAN & HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS –

NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

HOSTILIAN (JUNE-JULY 251 AD (1 MONTH)

HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS: MAY/JUNE 251 AD (LESS THAN 1 MONTH)

 

These two emperors were co-emperors as sons of the emperor Decius but actually did something of note in their brief reigns.

Well, at least Herennius did something. Hostilian was the surviving son of Decius, whom Decius’ successor Trebonianus Gallus proclaimed as his co-emperor to lend some legitimacy and continuity to his reign, only for Hostilian to die of disease shortly afterwards. Gallus then proclaimed his own son Volusianus as co-emperor – and we’ve already seen how both of them were equally useless, embodying the Crisis of the Third Century.

In fairness, the thing of note Herennius did in his short reign was similarly to die, but at least to die in battle – the same Battle of Arbritus against the Goths in which his father Decius was killed, except that he was killed first, which would technically make him rather than his father the first Roman emperor to be killed in battle by a foreign enemy.

It was his death for which Decius exhorted the troops in battle – “Let no one mourn, the death of one soldier is no great loss to the Republic”.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Hostilian a wojak dying pathetically from disease and Herennius a chad dying in battle – I’d say Dovahhatty got it right. Also, I love the humor in Trebonianus Gallus’ double take when Hostilian up and dies on him.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

 

 

 

(4) SALONINUS –

NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(260 AD: 1 MONTH)

 

Somewhat similar to the emperors in my previous entry, Saloninus was briefly co-emperor as son of the reigning emperor Gallienus but was more notable than the previous entry in his brief reign. Gallienus had appointed him, not as co-emperor but as caesar – effectively crown prince or imperial heir – and sent him to Gaul to help shore up imperial authority there, under the protection of the praetorian prefect Silvanus.

 

The political intuition of Gallienus that his imperial authority needed shoring up in Gaul was spot on, his timing less so. Poor Saloninus and Silvanus walked pretty much straight into a simmering revolt by legions hostile to a distant emperor who seemed to be failing in his duty to protect the Gallic provinces from Germanic barbarian invasion. That revolt went from simmering to full boil, as the legions proclaimed their commander Postumus as emperor, who then led the western third of the empire to break away or secede as what history has called the Gallic Empire.

 

Silvanus and Saloninus had fled with what few loyal troops they had to the Roman city at Cologne (in the German marches), where they were besieged by the army of Postumus. It was during that siege that Saloninus’ soldiers desperately proclaimed him emperor, perhaps hoping to sway Postumus’ army to defect or desert to their side – if so, it didn’t work as the citizens of the city surrendered Saloninus and Silvanus to Postumus’ army after a month of siege. No prizes for guessing what happened to them at that point.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Like father, like son

 

RATING: 2 STARS**

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

 

 

(5) VALERIUS VALENS & MARTINIAN –

NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

VALERIUS VALENS (OCTOBER 316 AD – JANUARY 317 AD: 2-3 MONTHS)

MARTINIAN (JULY – 19 SEPTEMBER 324 AD: 2 MONTHS)

 

Think of that trope of someone trying to stop or at least stall an implacable pursuer by desperately throwing things, ineffectual or otherwise, at them or in their path, only for that pursuer to effortlessly brush or shrug those things aside as barely an inconvenience.

When the Tetrarchy had boiled down to a civil war between the last two men standing – Licinus as eastern emperor and Constantine as western emperor – that someone was Licinus, his implacable pursuer was Constantine, and the things Licinus desperately threw at Constantine were these two guys.

I’m not sure whether one can count them as usurpers – nor as ‘western emperors’, as both didn’t actually rule anything despite Licinus appointing them as western emperors in title, given that Licinus did not control the western empire and was only appointing them in opposition to Constantine, each only for two or three months.

Valens was a frontier general in Dacia who helped Licinus raise another army after the latter’s crushing defeat by Constantine at the Battle of Cibalae. Licinus rewarded him by proclaiming him western emperor or augustus – only to abandon him and have him executed pursuant to a peace treaty with Constantine after being defeated again.

That peace ultimately broke down into another bout of civil war between Constantine and Licinus, so Licinus tried the same trick again – proclaiming Martinian, an imperial bureaucrat, as ‘western emperor’. This time, Constantine decisively and conclusively defeated Licinus – deposing and banishing both Licinius and Martinian before changing his mind to execute them instead.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

So inconsequential that Dovahhatty didn’t even depict them in full but only as icons on a map – wojak face for Valens and an alien for Martinian as a play on the similarity of the name to Martian (a trick Dovahhatty repeated for the eastern emperor Marcian). At least they got depictions, unlike some others in these dishonorable mentions.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

 

(6) NEPOTIANUS –

USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(3-30 JUNE 350 AD: 27 DAYS)

 

Technically a usurper but like Vetranio in my honorable mentions, he was effectively a counter-usurper, usurping another usurper – indeed in the very same year, 350 AD, against the very same usurper, Magnentius, who had usurped the Constantinian dynasty in the western empire, usurping Constans as western emperor, and facing off the eastern emperor and older brother of Constans, Constantius II. Yes – I know that’s a lot of usurping in that last sentence, but that pretty much sums up the Roman empire at times.

Unlike Vetranio, who did his usurping at the request of Constantine’s daughter – the sister of Constans and Constantius II – to protect her family (and hold the line for Constantius), Nepotianus actually was part of the family in the Constantinian dynasty, being the son of Constantine’s half-sister.

Where Vetranio effectively blocked Magentius from moving eastwards into Illyria, Nepotianus tried to block Magnetius from Rome itself – which is where he asserted his imperial claim for 27 days until Magnentius sent a trusted military subordinate to Rome to crush the revolt, literally parading Nepotianus’ head on a stick (well, lance) around the city after defeating and killing him.

What stops me from ranking Nepotianus similarly to Vetranio as a good usurper for honorable mention is just how brief and ineffectual his attempt to usurp the throne in Rome was – and that unlike Vetranio, Nepotianus’ attempt may have been a genuine bid for the imperial throne, which would make it even more pathetic, not least in that it saw him get killed rather than retire peacefully as Vetranio did.

On the other hand, he gets bonus points – and higher ranking despite the brevity of a reign of only 27 days – for doing it by literal gladiatorial coup. I have to admire his sheer ballsiness in that he didn’t even have any soldiers for his attempt, but instead entered Rome with a band of gladiators. Gladiators! And pulled it off enough that Rome’s prefect and loyal supporter of Magnentius had to flee the city. This is what the Gladiator sequel film should have featured!

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

I feel Dovahhatty short-changed Nepotianus by not featuring him in full (or as a chad) but only as an icon on the map – a wojak face. Still, I like the humor of his mother pleading with him against his coup attempt, as she was killed after it as well.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

 

 

(7) PROCOPIUS –

USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

(28 SEPTEMBER 365 AD – 27 MAY 366 AD: 7 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

And now we’re getting to the big league of usurpers. Procopius is the smallest – and briefest – of them but he gave it a damn good shot usurping the eastern emperor Valens, in the capital Constantinople no less, such that Valens almost gave up in despair.

Procopius took part in Emperor Julian’s campaign against the Sassanid Persians, entrusted with command of an army to join forces with the Armenian king and march southwards to join Julian’s main army in Assyria. However, he only joined the main army after Julian had died and it was retreating under Julian’s successor, Jovian. Dovahhatty implies that this was deliberate on the part of Procopius, but I’m not sure whether this is simply an invention by Dovahhatty as I have not seen any other source for it.

Due to rumors that Julian had ordered him to be imperial successor, he spent his time in hiding or on the run, firstly from Jovian and then from Valentinian and Valens who sent soldiers to arrest him. He decided that the best defense was a good offense – audaciously going to the capital of the eastern empire in Constantinople, acclaiming himself emperor there amidst discontent caused by Valens father-in-law, bribing two legions to support him and worst of all, allying with the Goths under their king Ermanaric against Valens.

Valens initially despaired of subduing the usurpation, particularly as his brother Valentinian was preoccupied with defending the western empire against Germanic barbarian tribes, but soon rallied against Procopius. The superior ability of his generals defeated the forces of Procopius, who again went on the run only to be betrayed, captured and executed.

As for those Goths, they arrived too late to help Procopius but kicked off the Gothic Wars instead, ultimately leading to the disastrous Roman defeat at Adrianople and the proverbial Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Dovahhatty does Procopius somewhat dirty, not so much in portraying him as a memetic virgin but more by that implication of treachery to Emperor Julian – which I have not seen in any other source.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

 

 

(8) MAXENTIUS –

USURPER: TETRARCHY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(28 OCTOBER 306 AD – 28 OCTOBER 312 AD: 6 YEARS)

 

Dovahhatty crudely describes him as a “an ambitious little c-” – well, I won’t finish the last word but it starts with c and it definitely isn’t caesar.

On the other hand, it’s hard not to have some sneaking admiration for his endurance as an usurper, a reign of six years being quite the feat and in the heart of the empire no less, albeit Rome had waned in importance during the Tetrarchy.

As per Youtuber Spectrum, “everyone gives him sh*t but this dude started out from a terrible position and still ended up doing a lot. With not much more than a few Praetorians and some raw recruits, he established control of Italy and parts of Africa, managed to defeat not one but two emperors in a defensive campaign, and managed to last six years while pretty much everyone was hostile to him. Then Constantine happened.”

Those two emperors were Severus II, essentially a flunky of Galerius, and Galerius himself, although I think Spectrum gives too much credit to Maxentius as opposed to his father, Maximian, who was really behind the skilful defense of cities in Italy, particularly against Galerius.

Other redeeming features were arguably those of being the last emperor to permanently reside in Rome itself, as well as being a prolific builder in that city during his reign.

Maxentius essentially came to power as Diocletian’s Tetrarchy crumbled into civil war – well, more into civil war, after Diocletian’s death. The son of Diocletian’s western co-augustus or co-emperor Maximian, Maxentius might well have expected to succeed his father, but was bypassed for the throne when Diocletian abdicated and made Maximian abdicate as well.

However, when Constantine succeeded his father Constantius as caesar (or junior emperor) in the western empire, that set the precedent for a son to succeed his imperial father and Maxentius took the opportunity – presented by revolt of the populace in Rome, prompted by rumors of their exemption from taxation being withdrawn, and by the Praetorians prompted by rumors of being disbanded – to be acclaimed as emperor in Italy and Africa.

Galerius as eastern emperor or augustus was having none of that (despite being Maxentius’ father-in-law) – and his candidate that he had acclaimed as western emperor or augustus, Severus II, marched south from north Italy to quell the usurpation. No doubt they and most other people expected that to be quick, but to everyone’s surprise, Severus was defeated (and ultimately killed after surrendering) – albeit the decisive factor was Maximian, since most of Severus’ army had served under Maximian and defected to his son. Maximian himself joined in his son’s usurpation as co-emperor.

Then it was Galerius’ turn to march into Italy against Maxentius (and Maximian) and also to be defeated in the attempt to quell the usurpation, although he succeeded in withdrawing his army intact from Italy, albeit barely.

It becomes a hot mess after that, much like the Tetrarchy and its civil wars. Despite helping Maxentius win against Galerius, Maximian attempted to depose his son but lost but was deposed himself, fleeing to Constantine’s court.

Domitius Alexander usurped the usurper in Africa, being proclaimed emperor there and posing a real danger to Maxentius as Africa was critical to Rome’s food supply, but Maxentius ultimately succeeded in defeating Domitius and reclaiming Africa.

However, things were less rosy for Maxentius elsewhere. In the meantime, Galerius had died, being succeeded by Licinus and Maximinus II as co-emperors in the eastern empire – ultimately things devolved into a civil war with Maxentius and Maximinus on one side and Licinus and Constantine on the other.

No prizes for guessing the victor in that one, as Constantine was always the winning side. As Spectrum said, “then Constantine came” – Maxentius was defeated by Constantine at the famous battle of Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312 AD, with its equally famous legend of divine vision to Constantine before the battle, telling him “in this sign, you shall conquer”. He came, he saw, he conquered – and Maxentius drowned as his defeated army tried to flee back across the river.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

Mostly, as per the quote at the start and the depiction as memetic virgin, although I lean somewhat into Spectrum’s admiration for him (ranking him among the ten most underrated emperors).

 

 

RATING: 2 STARS**

D-TIER (MID TIER)

 

 

 

 

(9) MAGNENTIUS & MAGNUS MAXIMUS

MAGNENTIUS – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(18 JANUARY 350 AD – 10 AUGUST 353 AD: 3 YEARS 6 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

MAGNUS MAXIMUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(25 AUGUST 383 AD – 28 AUGUST 388 AD: 5 YEARS 3 DAYS)

 

And now we come to two usurpers, similar to each other in usurping two similar emperors.

In the case of Magnentius, he usurped the emperor Constans. Constans had started as a promising emperor, defeating the Sarmatians in a campaign as a teenage co-emperor before defeating the attempt of his oldest brother Constantine II to usurp him. He added Constantine’s realm of the western part of the empire to his own. He then ruled as a western emperor who was reasonably robust in defending the western empire, campaigning successfully against the Franks.

And then it all went wrong for Constans – usurped by Magentius and killed when his legions deserted him due to him being “entirely too gay” and (suggestively) ‘favoring’ his barbarian soldiers. No, really – the surviving sources accuse him of misrule and homosexuality, albeit probably influenced by the propaganda of Magnentius’ faction.

How much of it is true is another matter – one presumes that if he was as licentious as the sources depict him, it was a quality originating from his youth but only reached a tipping point into incompetence and misrule later in his reign, given his earlier effectiveness as emperor.

Whatever the case, Constans became vulnerable to an imperial claim by Magnentius, a military commander or general in his army, as supported by a conspiracy among court officials. Isolating and killing Constans was the easy part, albeit the latter not done by Magnentius personally but by solders under his command.

So too was gaining control of most of Constans’ former realm of the western empire – quickly picking up Britannia, Gaul, Hispania, Italy, and Africa. He briefly lost control of Rome to another usurper Nepotianus but regained it. More substantially, another usurper Vetranio blocked him from gaining control of Illyria – and hence the last part of the former western empire under Constans.

The bigger problem was the remaining brother of Constans, the eastern emperor Constantius II, seeking to reassert the Constantinian dynasty over the whole empire.

In classic usurper fashion, Magnentius was an outsider with no family relationship to the Constantinian dynasty. Instead, he posed as the western empire’s liberator from the tyranny of Constans to court public support. In fairness, he appears to have been reasonably competent as ruler.

However, that wasn’t going to help him with the bigger problem of Constantius – he originally sought a diplomatic solution to that problem, hoping to “induce” Constantius to recognize him as the legitimate western emperor.

In hindsight of just how costly in casualties among the Roman legions their civil war was to be, a diplomatic solution may well have been better – but it is difficult to see what else Constantius could have done or how his own position could have been secure if he had accepted Magnentius’ usurpation of his brother.

In any event, the war between Magnentius and Constantius II was one of Rome’s costliest civil wars, with even contemporary writers and apparently Constantius himself lamenting its losses from the legions as a disaster for the defense of the empire. Constantius defeated Magnentius at the decisive battle of Mursa Major in 351 AD, although the war dragged on until the final battle of Mons Seleucis in 353 AD, after which Magnentius committed the proverbial Roman act of falling on his sword.

 

In the case of Magnus Maximus, his usurpation of Gratian echoed that by Magnentius of Constans (just as Gratian echoed Constans as emperor).

As per Dovahhatty – “A dude that named himself Magnus Maximus – the best, the greatest – who wasn’t either”

Maximus became a distinguished general in his army service, gaining “the support of his fellow soldiers and the admiration of the Romano-Britons whom he defended” when he defeated an incursion of the Picts and Scots in 381 AD. Interestingly, that admiration persisted in his status in British or Arthurian legend – something the Britons did for other usurpers originating from Roman Britain, although in fairness the province didn’t produce much else for Rome other than usurpers.

Like Constans before him, the western emperor Gratian became vulnerable to an imperial claim by Maximus – and for similar reasons, neglecting the affairs of state and (suggestively) favoring his barbarian soldiers, albeit the latter perhaps not as suggestive as the accusations against Constans.

And so Gratian’s army deserted to Maximus, who had raised the standard of revolt in Britain and invaded Gaul to advance that competing imperial claim, taking a large part of the Roman garrison and government in Britain with him – so much so that some historians attribute the end of direct Roman imperial presence in Britain to him (rather than the later usurper Constantine III).

Gratian fled, only to be pursued and killed in Gaul by forces loyal to Maximus, leaving Gratian’s half-brother Valentinian II – 12 years of age at the time – as the only other imperial claimant in the western empire.

Indeed, Maximus continued his campaign into Italy and might well have eliminated Valentinian but for being forestalled by a number of factors – the defense of Italy by the Frankish general Bauto as magister militum of the western empire, the intervention of the bishop Ambrose of Milan, and an accord with Theodosius in which Maximus was recognised as augustus or emperor of the western empire while Valentinian II remained in Italy.

Maximus made his capital at Trier in Gaul – ruling Britain, Gaul, Hispania and Africa. The Roman historian Orosius wrote that Maximus was “an energetic and able man and one worthy of the throne had he not risen to it by usurpation, contrary to his oath of allegiance”.

Ultimately, Maximus again turned his attention to Valentinian, forcing the latter (and Valentinian’s mother Justinian) to flee Milan to Theodosius in the eastern empire – prompting Theodosius to campaign against Maximus to restore Valentinian as western emperor, at least in name as a placeholder for the dynastic ambitions of Theodosius in both eastern and western empires.

The forces of Theodosius decisively defeated Maximus at the Battle of Poetovio in 388 AD – Maximus surrendered and was executed at Aquileia.

Shout-out to Victor as son and co-emperor of Maximus, suffering the same fate of defeat and execution as his father – it’s a shout-out because like Marcus as the son of Basiliscus, he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Maximus.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

For Magentius, I think so – wojak but not too wojak. Nice pun with Vetranio as his opponent calling him Magnet.

For Maximus, yes – as per my opening quote, as well as my feature image from Dovahhatty depicting Maximus as wojak.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

 

 

(10) CONSTANTINE III –

USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(407-411: 4 YEARS)

 

Fake Constantine as Dovahhatty calls him – but I like him to an extent, enough to rank him as least bad of the usurpers in my dishonorable mentions (and indeed, least bad of all my dishonorable mentions, usurper or not).

Yes, he was a usurper, once again from that province of usurpers, Roman Britain – and arguably at the worst possible time, with the western empire reeling from the infamous Crossing of the Rhine (of Germanic tribes into Gaul).

I say arguably, because as bad as the time was for the empire, he was usurping the western emperor Honorius and there was never a bad time for that – Honorius was one of the worst emperors and certainly the worst western emperor.

Admittedly that meant Constantine was also opposed to Stilicho, Honorius’ military commander that was holding the empire together – but Stilicho had his hands full, not to mention his main army, with Germanic incursions into Italy itself, notably the Vandals and the Visigoths, the latter led by Alaric. That is why Stilicho could only send a small subordinate force under Sarus the Goth against Constantine III. However, nothing Constantine III did was as bad for Stilicho as the latter’s betrayal and execution in 408 at the hands of his own emperor, Honorius.

Constantine also gets bonus points as a common soldier, not even an officer, which is pretty impressive for an imperial claimant that succeeded in his claim to the extent that he was actually recognized as co-emperor by Honorius, albeit for a limited period from 409 to 411 and because Honorius was in dire circumstances and had to placate him.

Constantine gets even more bonus points as, like other usurpers from Roman Britain such as Magnus Maximus, he was admired by Britons to the extent of being immortalized in British legend – indeed to higher extent than any other as the father of Uther Pendragon and hence grandfather of King Arthur.

Of course, that admiration from Briton is somewhat ironic since Constantine III marked the decisive withdrawal of Roman forces from Britain – leading Rome’s mobile forces in Britain to Gaul for his usurpation of the western empire, albeit something of a recurring plot point in British legend as King Arthur was to do much the same.

If ever I rank all the imperial Constantines, he’d probably stack up reasonably well and would at least outrank Constantine II. I anticipate he’d rank the more legitimate Constantine III, otherwise known as Heraclius Constantine in the eastern empire, who ruled only three months before dying of tuberculosis.

Anyway, although originating from revolt in Britain, Constantine abandoned Britain itself, taking all of the Roman mobile troops and their commander Gerontius to confront the Germanic tribes who had infamously crossed the Rhine in 406.

Thereafter Gaul became the stronghold of his imperial claim – “with a mixture of fighting and diplomacy Constantine stabilised the situation and established control over Gaul and Hispania (modern Spain and Portugal), establishing his capital at Arles”.

However, his hold over Hispania proved more tenuous than that over Gaul, as the relatives of Honorius rose up in revolt and expelled his administration, which was the most energetic or useful that they or Honorius would ever prove to be.

Constantine sent an army under the commander Gerontius to re-establish his authority, while also successfully repelling the forces of Honorius led by Sarus the Goth against him from Gaul. This resulted in the high point of his imperial claim in early 409, when Honorius was compelled by necessity of circumstance to recognize Constantine as emperor. Constantine then elevated his son Constans, previously a monk, as his own co-emperor and heir.

And then it all fell apart for Constantine. Later in 409, Gerontius rebelled in Hispania, proclaiming his own pet imperial candidate Maximus and inciting barbarian groups in Gaul to revolt. Constantine sent Constans to quash the revolt, but this failed with Constans retreating back to Arles – as did Constantine’s own attempt to invade northern Italy, with Constantine similarly withdrawing back to Arles.

The noose tightened around Constantine. Another attempt by Constans against Gerontius in Hispania failed, this time with Gerontius pursuing Constans into Gaul, killing Constans at Vienne in 411 and besieging Constantine in Arles itself. In the meantime, Honorius was emboldened by his new capable replacement for Stilicho as military commander (and his future co-emperor), Constantius III, to renege on his recognition of, and reclaim Gaul from, Constantine.

Constantius “arrived at Arles while Gerontius was outside the city. Much of Gerontius’s army deserted to Constantius, who took over the siege. A force attempting to relieve Constantine was ambushed. Constantine abdicated, took holy orders, and – promised his life – surrendered”. That promise was not kept – he was executed instead and his head sent to Honorius.

Shout-out to his son and co-emperor Constans as previously mentioned – once again like other similar sons elevated to co-emperors by usurpers (Marcus for Basiliscus and Victor for Magnus Maximus), it’s a shout-out because he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Constantine.

 

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

 

It’s hard to resist Dovahhatty’s consistent naming of him as Fake Constantine, reflected in the depiction of him as wojak – and one of the most smug at that.

 

RATING: 2 STARS**

D-TIER (LOW TIER)