(3) SILBANNACUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

A mystery numismatic emperor too obscure even for Dovahhatty – if he had done anything worthwhile, someone would have written something about him, amirite? As it is, we only know about him from two coins.

Once again I refer to Adrian Goldsworthy’s observation that our list of imperial claimants is likely never to be complete or exhaustive, given the paucity of the contemporary historical record and that we are still finding ‘imperial’ coins minted in the name of new or unknown claimants.

Well, Silbannacus is one such imperial claimant, about whom almost nothing is known as he doesn’t appear in any literary historical sources. It may seem a little unfair to rank him as dishonorable mention and so low in my rankings to boot – but hey, at least he outranked two other dishonorable mentions even only as two coins, although that may say more about those other mentions.

Silbannacus makes the Wikipedia list of emperors as being of “ambiguous legitimacy”, hence my dishonorable mention for him, which he earns from two coins in his name found in the twentieth century.

“Based on the design of the coin and its silver content, Silbannacus was most likely concurrent with the reigns of Philip the Arab (r.244–249), Decius (r.249–251), Trebonianus Gallus (r.251–253), Aemilian (r.253), or Valerian (r.253–260). The two most prevalent ideas are the older hypothesis, that Silbannacus was a usurper in Gaul during the reign of Philip the Arab, at some point between 248 and 250, and the newer hypothesis, based on the design of the second coin, that Silbannacus was a briefly reigning legitimate emperor, holding Rome between the death of Aemilian and the arrival of Valerian.”

Shout-out to Sponsian while we’re taking numismatic mystery emperors – too obscure even to make the Wikipedia list of emperors or anything more than this footnote in my dishonorable mentions, although he does have a Wikipedia entry as a possible usurper in the Crisis of the Third Century, apparently from a few coins in his name in a hoard of coins found in Transylvania in the eighteenth century but only verified as authentic in 2022. There seem to be two leading theories for him. The first is that he was a usurper during the reign of Gordian III or Philip the Arab, based on the other coins found with his coins. The other theory is that he was a military commander who proclaimed himself emperor when Dacia was cut off from the rest of the empire around 260 AD.

RATING: 1 STAR*
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

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

(2) PRISCUS ATTALUS –
USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (ITALY & GAUL)
(409-410 AD & 414-415 AD)

You know – this one surprised me in ranking him as my worst usurper and second 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 Alaric 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.

RATING: 1 STAR*
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Crisis of the Third Century

(1) VOLUSIANUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(251 – 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 earns my worst dishonorable mention entry because he 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.

RATING: 1 STAR*
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

But wait – there’s more!

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: The Severan Dynasty

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

And here we are at the end of the line, both of legitimate Roman emperors in general and 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 albeit not the worst like the Theodosian dynasty – 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 – by the measurement of some historians, he extended the empire to its greatest physical extent in its history, even more than that of Trajan which is usually considered to be its greatest extent.

On the other hand, the 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 – or 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 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”.

That 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 to avoid further civil war, but it remains that he literally bought political stability at the price of economic instability, which bore bitter fruit as soon as the Crisis of the Third Century, if not the decline of the empire itself.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(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 both and the fall of the latter.

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 to 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.

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 like Arbogaust and Baubo helped turn the tide of the Gothic War to force the Goths into a treaty.

And thereafter, the Visigoths were consistently the most reliable Germanic foederati or allies for the Romans, including 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 Arbogaust, 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 Arbogaust – and probably mere placeholder for his own son Honorius.

The second was in 394 when Arbogaust 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.

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

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

(18) THEODOSIUS II & LEO
THEODOSIUS II: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)
(408-450 AD: 42 YEARS 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)
LEO: LEONID DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)
(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.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(17) 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.

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