Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(1) ULPIA SEVERINA –
FIRST AND LAST EMPRESS OF THE CLASSICAL ROMAN EMPIRE
(275 AD: 5-11 WEEKS – 6 MONTHS?)

Ulpia Severina – Lady Restorer of the World, first and last empress of the classical Roman Empire.

Or probably not according to the consensus of historiography, since her ‘reign’ as widow of Aurelian really boils down to a few coins minted in her name.

As such, she is my one honorable mention that does not appear in the Wikipedia list of Roman emperors at all, so obviously she’s not an usurper either. Well, at least not in the literal sense, but perhaps in the historiographical sense that some historians have metaphorically usurped her claim to the throne for her.

However, I prefer the romantic speculation of her as first and last empress of the Roman Empire – similar to my romantic fondness for the legend of Pope Joan, or for Joshua Norton as self-proclaimed First and Last Emperor of the United States (and Protector of Mexico).

After all, the eastern Roman empire has its reigning empresses, even if only a few of them. Of course, the eastern Roman empire also had a number of powerful women running things behind the throne, or beside it as imperial consorts, as did the classical Roman empire, although for some reason they seem to loom larger in the history of the eastern Roman empire – looking at you, Theodora. So why not one reigning empress in the classical empire?

Also, if anyone deserves that title, it’s Ulpia Severina as the wife of Aurelian – and widow after his assassination. Little is known about her – including when she was born, when she married Aurelian or when she was proclaimed as augusta (although the last may well have coincided with his triumphs celebrating his defeat and reclamation of the Palmyrene and Gallic Empires). The surviving literary sources do not discuss her at all, except for allusions to Aurelian’s wife in the Historia Augusta.

The only reliable evidence to her at all is a “scant number of inscriptions and coins”, confirming that she was indeed Aurelian’s wife and held the title of Augusta – and it’s from some unusual examples of those coins, minted in her name in 275 AD, that gives rise to speculation that she reigned in her own name as widow of Aurelian in the brief interregnum period between his assassination and the proclamation of Tacitus as his successor (originally thought to have been anywhere up to six months but now thought to be somewhere between five to eleven weeks).

If indeed she did, then in the eloquent words of Dovahhatty, she did “absolutely f*ck all, refusing to take advantage of her husband’s death and just printing coins for fun while waiting for a successor to be chosen” – coin mints go “brrr!” as Dovahhatty captioned her in the style of the meme.

And she did it awesomely – don’t you diss my empress, Dovahhatty! She also had a daughter with Aurelian, whose name is not known to recorded history – and both of them disappear from the historical record after the accession of Tacitus.

RATING: 3 STARS***
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

As I said, I’m ranking all the Roman emperors (until 476 AD) – and between my Top 10 Best Roman Emperors and twenty special mentions, I’ve ranked the thirty emperors I consider as ‘good’ emperors, right up to the dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors or what I’ve dubbed my Pertinax-Thrax line.

However, the good emperors don’t quite end there – it’s time to take pause and squeeze out a few honorable mentions for imperial claimants that don’t quite have the same authenticity or legitimacy as the emperors in my top ten or special mentions, but which I would still rank as ‘good’ (albeit in my x-tier or ‘wild’ tier).

Yes – we’re talking usurpers or at least those imperial claimants generally labelled as usurpers (with the notable exception of my first honorable mention). Not surprisingly, I have generally ranked usurpers dishonorable mention as ‘bad’ emperors – usurpers by definition tend to be ‘bad’ – but there were literally a couple of ‘good’ usurpers I have ranked as honorable mention. Yes – that’s a spoiler that I was only able to squeeze out three honorable mentions (my first honorable mention and two usurpers).

The term usurper itself is to some extent a question of degree in the Roman Empire, with the primary distinction being between successful usurpers and unsuccessful usurpers – the former upholding their claim as emperor, and the latter, well, not doing so, usually also ending with their defeat and death.

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

Indeed, 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”.

It didn’t help that “true legitimizing structures and theories were weak, or wholly absent, in the Roman Empire, and there were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the Roman army” – or even just part of the Roman army, the usual mechanism for usurpers being the legions they led.

As I said at the outset of ranking all the emperors, there is the issue of whom I rank as emperors – even with my ground rule of only ranking the emperors of the ‘classical empire’ prior to 476 AD – given the list of claimants to that title. As historian Adrian Goldsworthy points out, that’s a list which 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.

So I’ve gone by Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors, although I reserved the right to consider the entries noted to be of more dubious legitimacy in further honorable or dishonorable mentions, hence these honorable mentions.

As noted previously, “the main factor that distinguishes usurpers from legitimate Roman emperors is their degree of success”. The Wikipedia list reflects this, operating on a collection of inclusion criteria – such as imperial claimants “whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and who ruled undisputed are treated as legitimate emperors”, “imperial claimants who were proclaimed emperors by another, legitimate, senior emperor, or who were recognized by a legitimate senior emperor”, and “imperial claimants who achieved the recognition of the Roman Senate” or “the possession and control of Rome itself”.

With the exception of my first honorable mention, these honorable mentions are for those entries in the Wikipedia list which are noted as being of “ambiguous legitimacy” or “varying ascribed status”. As the notes to the list clarify, “unless otherwise noted to be some other ambiguity, the emperors marked to be of ambiguous legitimacy are those who fulfill one or more of the inclusion criteria above, but who are not universally regarded by scholars to count as legitimate. In most cases, such figures are those who held power only briefly, and/or who in times of more than one emperor held one of the capitals but never achieved the full recognition of the other emperor(s)”. As for “the junior co-emperors marked as being of varying ascribed status, they 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”.

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

(20) MAXIMINUS THRAX –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(235-238 AD: 3 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

Maximinus I, nicknamed Maximinus Thrax for his Thracian origin – or as I like to call him, Max Thrax, the archetypal barracks emperor. Also second of two emperors right on my dividing line between good emperors and bad ones – I will defend my Pertinax-Thrax line!

I will also defend that Maximinus Thrax was on the good side of that line separating good emperors from bad, albeit only just.

Interestingly, this is somewhat paralleled by Spectrum’s ranking of him in median position of emperors prior to 395 AD, which even noted that “this guy being in the median position actually fits what you would expect from your average Roman emperor”. (Although Spectrum sets his bar for good emperors much higher than I do, ranking only 15 emperors before 395 AD as good)

Proposing Max Thrax as a good emperor, even borderline, might seem odd. As stated, he was the archetypal barracks emperor – and also the archetypal Crisis of the Third Century emperor, particularly as his reign is often considered to mark the start of the Crisis, proclaimed by his troops as emperor after the army assassinated his predecessor, Severus Alexander.

Furthermore, he is often portrayed as a bad emperor, indeed, a cruel despot – not least by the Historia Augusta, which also portrayed him as a giant over 8 feet tall. The Roman historian Herodian didn’t quite go that far, but did describe him as man of “frightening appearance and colossal size”. So who’s going to tell him he’s a bad emperor? You? I don’t think so.

Which, by the way, was pretty much the attitude of the Senate towards him, so they conspired in plots to assassinate him and proclaim other candidates for emperor, leading to the so-called Year of Six Emperors, outdoing the previous Year of Four Emperors and the Year of Five Emperors.

A good part of this was usual Senatorial snobbery towards a provincial of low birth who had risen through the ranks of the army, not even a true Roman but a barbarian – hence that Thrax title. However, they were also simply scared sh*tless of this man-mountain, particularly as Max Thrax more than reciprocated their hostility after their plots and other proclaimed emperors failed.

If Rome wouldn’t come to the mountain, then the mountain was coming to Rome – Max Thrax marched on Rome, Sulla-like, with his legions. Fortunately for the Senate, he was baulked by the city of Aquileia, which closed its gates against him – and he was assassinated by his mutinous, starving troops when the siege bogged down, having never set foot in Rome during his reign.

All of which seems to add to the oddity of my proposal for him as a good emperor but my proposal essentially arises for the reason that he was mostly too busy to be bothered with Rome for his reign of three years – doing what he did best, leading his legions in nearly constant campaigning to defend the empire at its frontiers, despite the Senate’s shenanigans which included trying to kill him on campaign. That and the small matter that he was easily the best of the emperors in the Year of Six Emperors.

Of course, the costs of his campaigning, as well as the heavy-handed harsh nature of his rule in the nature of military discipline, led to what he is usually criticized for as emperor – debasing the currency, excessive taxation and lavishing funds on the army.

But – and this is where my proposal comes in – it was effective against the Germanic barbarian tribes at the frontier. He defeated the Alamanni, taking the title of Germanicus Maximus – and campaigned deep into Germany itself, to the furthest extent of any Roman campaign in Germany, defeating a German tribe at the Battle of Harzhorn beyond the river Weser located in the modern German state of Saxony.

Wikipedia notes this achievement of “securing the German frontier, at least for a while” – but personally I think this understates that Maximinus’ campaigning seems to have secured the German frontier for a substantial period, remaining quiet and arguably buying the empire precious breathing space and time at that frontier in its crisis.

His achievements went beyond his campaigns on and beyond the German frontier. He was at the Danubian frontier with his legions fighting the Dacians and Sarmatians before marching on Rome – and his achievements may have extended further yet, as apparently Israeli archaeologists identified his name on a milestone in the Golan Heights, suggesting a massive renovation project during his rule on those roads.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

(19) PERTINAX
NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FIVE EMPERORS
(193 AD: 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

Oof – reigns don’t get much briefer than that. We come now to the first of two emperors right on my dividing line between good emperors and bad ones, although I will defend both that line and those two emperors being on the good side of it, albeit only just (hence their three-star and mid-tier ranking).

Poor Pertinax – he essentially tried to pull off a Nerva, but was unlucky to be faced with a more aggressive and frankly out of control Praetorian Guard. Indeed, in terms of his brief administration, he was better than Nerva, particularly in financial reform, but just didn’t get the same chance Nerva did.

Like Nerva (and Tacitus), Pertinax succeeded an assassinated predecessor – in this case (and good riddance), Commodus. Born the son of a freed slave, Pertinax had risen through the ranks of the army, notably in the Roman-Parthian War of 161-166, to a career as provincial governor of a number of provinces and urban prefect of Rome. It was as the latter that the Praetorian Guard hurried to proclaim him as emperor after the assassination of Commodus, the first in what came to be called the Year of Five Emperors.

And for someone thrust into the position, Pertinax took a damn good swing at it. The most pressing issue was economic reform for an empire left with a treasury emptied by the profligacy of Commodus. Pertinax even emulated Domitian, reforming and revaluing the currency.

He managed to pay the Praetorian Guard off their expected ‘donations’ (or bribes) – by selling off Commodus’ booty (in both senses of the word, as it included pleasure slaves). However, he didn’t pay them enough – because of the aforementioned empty treasury – and that was compounded by him attempting to impose some semblance of military discipline on them as well.

You can guess how well that turned out for Pertinax. Not well, in short, as the Praetorian Guard descended on his palace. Rather than flee, Pertinax attempted to reason with them, appealing to their decency and service to the empire as well as the empty treasury – but of course being the Praetorian Guard, they killed him instead and proceeded to auction off the imperial throne.

It says something about Pertinax that he has consistently had a good historical reputation, even almost immediately after his assassination – probably because everyone deplored the Praetorian Guard.

The emperor who ultimately won out in the Year of Five Emperors, Septimius Severus, had Pertinax deified and commemorated, as well as executing the assassins and replacing the Praetorian Guard with loyal soldiers.

Historian Cassio Dio upheld him as “an excellent and upright man” who displayed “not only humaneness and integrity in the imperial administrations, but also the most economical management and the most careful consideration for the public welfare”. However, he did acknowledge that some called out Pertinax’s decision to reason with the Praetorian Guard as “senseless” – and that Pertinax might have been better to substitute a more tempered approach for the speed with which he tried to reform the imperial government.

So I’m not the only one to hold the Pertinax line. Writer Sophia McDougall even used his reign for the point of divergence for her alternate history novel Romanitas – “the plot against Pertinax was thwarted, and Pertinax introduced a series of reforms that would consolidate the Roman Empire to such a degree that it would still be a major power in the 21st century”.

RANKING: 3 STARS***
C-TIER (MID-TIER)
EMPIRE-BASER. Well, he tried to be – and he would have succeeded but for those meddling Praetorian Guards

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XII: The Five Good Emperors

(18) NERVA –
NERVA-ANTONINE / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS
(96-98: 1 YEAR 4 MONTHS 9 DAYS)

And now we come to the last of the Five Good Emperors in my rankings, who ironically was the first of them in historical sequence. As that implies, his inclusion in the Five Good Emperors overstates him as a good emperor – he was decent enough, but really only as a senatorial caretaker or placeholder to ensure the stability of imperial succession from his assassinated predecessor to his successor. But what a successor!

The predecessor was Domitian – an emperor I rank as good, indeed much better than Nerva, but who undeniably inflamed the senatorial and aristocratic hostility that saw him assassinated, which might well have resulted in a succession crisis or civil war but for Nerva. Nerva was declared emperor by the Senate – although he was almost 66 years of age, he had a lifetime of distinguished service under Nero and the Flavian dynasty.

The successor was of course Trajan and really it was only this succession that ranks Nerva among good emperors at all, let alone among the Five Good Emperors – or let alone gives his name to the historical label of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty.

That Nerva shares those conventional historical labels of the Five Good Emperors or the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty is definitely inflated. Macchiavelli coined the term of the Five Good Emperors, while Gibbon picked up that ball and ran with it. Frankly, the term should be the Four Good Emperors (with special appearance by Lucius Verus), dropping Nerva altogether – and it should also be the Trajanic-Antonine dynasty.

Otherwise, he wasn’t that good. Ancient historians loved him as “a wise and moderate emperor” but that’s not surprising as ancient historians were of the senatorial class and he was favorable to the Senate, in marked contrast to the mutual hostility between his predecessor Domitian and the Senate.

Modern historians on the other hand have assessed him less favorably. Brief as it was, his reign caused financial difficulties – particularly heart-breaking after the financial prudence and revaluation of the currency under Domitian. His reign was also “marred” by his “inability to assert control over the Roman army”. Even his greatest achievement – his nomination of a successor (and accordingly “the peaceful transition of power after his death”) – was forced upon him by the revolt of the Praetorian Guard.

Spectrum summed it up – “The first of the Five Good Emperors, but let’s be real here, he wasn’t a good emperor. He sent the empire into financial troubles and his rule was marked by the fact that the army hated him. The only good thing he did was choosing Trajan as his successor and that’s the only reason he’s one of the Five Good Emperors. It was a good pick for sure though”.

I think that’s a little too caustic, hence my ranking of Nerva as a good emperor, albeit towards the tail end of good emperors. Spectrum and other critics underestimate the importance of succession. Yes, his only real achievement might have been ensuring the peaceful transition to a good successor, but that’s still an impressive achievement, given how many Roman emperors screwed even that up. Even Tacitus – my Crisis of the Third Century counterpart to Nerva – didn’t quite pull off a Nerva as well as Nerva himself when it came to a successor.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE-BASER

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

(17) TACITUS
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(275-276: 7 MONTHS)

No, not the historian that everyone knows when they hear the name, if only for his famous quote about making a desert and calling it peace, but the emperor no one knows.

In fairness, we are coming to the tail end of emperors I rank as good, but Tacitus was pretty decent, even with his brief reign, albeit brief reigns were typical for emperors in the Crisis of the Third Century. Indeed, so much so that this is the only one of my special mention pairings of an emperor matching one in the Crisis of the Third Century where I rank the Crisis emperor over his non-Crisis counterpart.

Tacitus and his non-Crisis counterpart were essentially both (elderly) senatorial caretaker or placeholder emperors – enabling the stable succession of imperial authority from an assassinated predecessor to a more capable successor.

In the case of Tacitus, his assassinated predecessor was one of the greatest emperors of all, the emperor who did the most to bring the empire back from the abyss – Aurelian. The usual account is that the army and Praetorian Guard, remorseful for the assassination of Aurelian, deferred the choice of imperial successor to the Senate – who chose Tacitus. Although the historical sources present him as elderly at the time, he had a distinguished career in public office. Not surprisingly, he restored the Senate’s authority in imperial administration.

Stable succession of imperial authority was critical at this time – although Aurelian had mostly brought the empire out of the Crisis, it would have been easy for the empire to slide right back into chaos after his assassination but for that stable succession through Tacitus.

In fairness, the succession wasn’t as stable as it might have been at the other end and more a matter of good fortune than design on the part of Tacitus. Tacitus died unexpectedly, either from illness or assassination (as the sources differ) – hence the brevity of his reign – but fortunately, albeit after a brief usurpation by his half-brother Florianus, he was succeeded by a more capable emperor with a longer reign, Probus, who consolidated the recovery of the empire from the Crisis.

I rank Tacitus above his non-Crisis counterpart because he was more than a mere placeholder for imperial succession despite his brief reign. This was still the Crisis of the Third Century after all, as the barbarian tribes continued to remind the empire by raiding it – and Tacitus won a victory over tribes raiding the Danubian frontier, gaining himself the title Gothicus Maximus. He was en route to deal with further barbarian invasions of Gaul by the Franks and Alamanni when he died.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

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

(16) VALERIAN –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY (EASTERN EMPIRE – CO-EMPEROR WITH HIS SON GALLIENUS)
(253 – 260: 6 YEARS 9 MONTHS)

My special mention entry as Crisis of the Third Century counterpart to Julian – similar in that his reign has also been defined by his defeat by the Sassanid Persians, although unlike Julian he was captured rather than mortally wounded in battle. Part of why it was so definitive is that he was the first emperor to be taken captive in battle, “causing shock and instability throughout the Roman empire” – as well as lurid tales of his fate at the hands of his captors.

There’s also a parallel with Julian in Valerian commanding the Roman forces on the Rhine prior to his accession as emperor, and even with Julian’s opposition to Christianity – although Valerian dealt with Christianity in the usual manner less appealing to modern sensibilities of imperial persecution prior to Christianity became an official religion.

But why does he rank as good emperor at all, you might ask – sharing a Sassanid Persian defeat with Julian, arguably leaving the eastern provinces of the empire in a much more precarious position than Julian’s defeat did, without any of Julian’s religious or administrative reform?

Well, Valerian did rule longer than Julian – nearly seven years, a miracle in the heart of the Crisis of the Third Century and the second longest reign after his son Gallienus in that period – having marched on Rome to restore the imperial authority that had collapsed and been usurped.

Valerian then almost immediately shared that imperial authority with Gallienus as co-emperor – and since the western and eastern halves of the empire were both in crisis, Valerian and Gallienus split the problems of the empire between them, Valerian taking the east while Gallienus took the west. Each held the line against overwhelming odds, with Valerian nearing and into his sixties.

Foremost among those odds for the eastern empire were the Sassanids, who had recently overthrown and taken over the Parthians in Persia, as well as proving far more dangerous to the Romans – attacking deeper into the Roman Empire than the Parthians ever had, reputed to have captured over thirty cities, including Antioch, one of the empire’s greatest cities.

Valerian was initially successful against the Sassanids, recovering Antioch and the province of Syria, but his problems were compounded by the Goths raiding deeper into the eastern provinces than any Germanic tribes ever had – with maritime raids along the Black Sea coastline and even to cities in Asia Minor.

Valerian got unlucky – “an outbreak of plague killed a critical number of legionaries” and the Sassanids attacked again. Valerian marched eastwards to engage them but was defeated and captured by them in the Battle of Edessa. The plague and defeat sorely depleted the defenses of the eastern provinces, but fortunately the Palmyrene client state under Odenathus stepped into the breach, albeit they would prove to be a bigger problem for the Romans soon.

Valerian never returned from his captivity, so at very least he lived out his days as a captive, possibly as a footstool to the Sassanid monarch Shapur. No, really – that was actually one of the tales told of him, indeed one of the better fates. There were other far more lurid fates attributed for him, with accounts of his death by Shapur forcing him to swallow molten gold (like the Parthians had done to the Roman general Crassus) or from being flayed alive. The latter even had the Persians add insult to injury by stuffing the skin as a grisly trophy in their temple – until it was retrieved for cremation and burial by the Romans after a subsequent victory over the Persians to avenge Valerian’s defeat.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE-SAVER – well he tried, anyway, arguably holding the line long enough for his successors to save it.

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(15) JULIAN –
CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY
(361 – 363 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

“Thou has conquered, Galilean”

Julian the Apostate – or as fellow Julian fans call him, Julian the Philosopher. Opinions tend to be divided on Julian, then and since, although I fall on the positive side of that divide.

I was tempted to nominate Julian for a wildcard entry in my top ten, in a similar romantic vein to Majorian for emperors fighting against the odds. Where Majorian strove to restore the western empire as its last great emperor, Julian strove to restore classical paganism as the last pagan emperor – and a large part of me wishes he had succeeded. It’s all I can do to stop myself yelling “This isn’t over! Pan isn’t dead! Julian the Apostate was right!” in churches.

It is his status as the last pagan emperor and his attempted revival of classical paganism for which he is best known – and definitively known, with subsequent Christians remembering him as apostate for having ‘abandoning’ Christianity.

Julian particularly appeals to modern sensibilities in religion, as he mostly dealt with Christianity not by persecution to which the imperial state had so often resorted in the past, but by mockery and tolerance, the latter essentially as a form of freedom of religion, albeit with preferential treatment for paganism as the official state religion. He even went so far as to allow the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple as a counterweight to Christianity – or as modern critics might say, to troll it – although nothing came of such plans, due to the cost and time involved.

However, Julian didn’t simply strive to restore classical paganism but also the classical principate of the empire, although the two were probably intertwined – in essence, he was a traditionalist, looking back to the golden age of Rome in the second century, the Rome of the Five Good Emperors, and sought to restore it through its leading institutions. In particular, Julian was an admirer of Marcus Aurelius and sought to emulate him, above all in a philosophical approach to being emperor. And as proverbial philosopher-kings go, Julian did pretty well – if anything, he erred on the side of being too philosophical.

What restoring the principate meant was eschewing the dominate – that autocratic style of government instituted by Diocletian and apotheosized by Constantine – and instead seeking to revive the principate, with the ideal rule as princeps or first among equals, engaging with the Senate and citizenry. He saw the royal court and imperial bureaucracy that had proliferated under the dominate as “inefficient, corrupt, and expensive”, dismissing thousands of “servants, eunuchs, and superfluous officials”. This too perhaps appeals to modern sensibilities.

Julian’s attempts at the revival of classical paganism and principate – as well as his rise to emperor and reign in general – are even more impressive as somewhat like Claudius he had to hide behind feigning or at least presenting harmlessness to the reigning members of the Constantinian dynasty and loyal faithfulness to the Christianity they had adopted. A nephew of Constantine the Great, Julian was one of the few members of the imperial family to survive the purges as a child in the reign of his cousin Constantius II but was effectively raised under house arrest or close supervision by Constantius, albeit in reasonably privileged circumstances and obviously with good education, given his philosophical studies and writings. Indeed, Julian is the emperor for whom we have the most surviving writings by his own hand.

Ultimately however, as you can see, I did not rank Julian in my top ten or even my top tier of emperors. One thing that has to count against such a ranking is the brevity of his reign – less than two years – which also probably undermined his attempts to restore classical paganism, reversed by his successors. If he had reigned a similar length to Constantius II or the emperors he sought to emulate like Marcus Aurelius, he might well have ranked higher and achieved more for the revival of classical paganism – but alas, it was not to be.

In fairness, like other emperors with similarly brief reigns in these special mentions, the brevity of his reign is offset by it being the capstone of his achievements prior to and resulting in him becoming emperor – in particular, as junior emperor or caesar for the western empire under Constantius II. Julian proved himself a capable military commander and tactician against Germanic barbarian raids into the empire, notably the Alamanni and Franks – firstly defending and repelling them from the empire, and then campaigning beyond the Rhine into German territory to subdue them.

Again, this is particularly impressive, as due to his background he had no prior military experience and instead acquired it through study of military texts or on the ground in campaign – the former depicted humorously by Dovahatty with Julian as a rare transformation from wojak to chad by sheer power of will.

Indeed, Julian did a little too well as junior emperor or caesar – with his troops declaring him augustus or emperor, he luckily averted civil war with Constantius II only through the fortunate timing of the latter’s death from illness, with the added bonus that the latter had to recognize there was no one other than Julian to succeed him as emperor.

Back to my ranking, apart from the brevity of his reign, there’s also the small fact that he did not succeed in restoring classical paganism, with all his attempts to do so reversed by his successors. Somewhat similarly to Majorian with the fall of the western Roman empire, it is not clear whether Julian could have decisively reversed the substitution of Christianity for classical paganism as the imperial religion, although a longer reign would almost certainly have stalled it for a time.

I’ve seen all sorts of contradictory arguments for this – ranging from Julian being too hardcore towards Christianity (not having “a little less venom and a little more tact”) to not being hardcore enough. Julian may well have added to this with a few apparent contradictions of his own – he was very philosophical in his approach to paganism, leaning heavily into Neo-Platonism, but there was also his participation in animal sacrifice, unpopular even among pagans.

Personally, the contradiction strikes me is his asceticism, reminiscent of Chesterton’s jibe at ascetic atheism in The Song of the Strange Ascetic – “of them that do not have the faith, and will not have the fun.” I mean, if you’re going to go pagan, go Dionysian or go home.

However, mostly I think that, again similarly to the situation of Majorian (and the Germanic states or influence within the western empire), that Christianity was simply too entrenched within the empire to be removed. For one thing, Christianity had an intellectual unity that the more amorphous paganism did not – indeed, there wasn’t really a coherent pagan ‘religion’ comparable to Christianity – as well as an institutional strength quite apart from its beliefs, as sociologist Rodney Stark has opined. Even Julian implicitly conceded the latter, as he sought to remodel pagan religion on Christianity, notably in its priesthood and public charity.

Spectrum may well sum it up best (ranking Julian in similar position at 25th best emperor before 395 AD, albeit his cutoff for good emperors is higher) – “Great tactical dude, effective administrator, stupid-ass ideals – Christianity had some forty-odd years entrenching itself into the imperial fold. Did this guy think it was just going to get away, because he wanted it to?”

However, he was not quite the “great tactical dude” in the other fact that must detract from a higher ranking – and which also led directly to the brevity of his reign – namely his defeat and death in his ambitious campaign against the Sassanid Persians. It’s also why I’ve decided to rank him just lower than Lucius Verus and Carus, who after all led successful campaigns against the Parthians and Sassanids respectively.

He almost certainly would have been better off avoiding the campaign altogether but was another Roman undone by dreams of Alexander, albeit with the solid domestic motive of shoring up the support of the eastern army he had inherited from Constantius II. His tactical sense served him well enough at the outset of the campaign, which was initially successful but foundered as the army found itself in that common predicament of having to retreat from lack of supplies under constant attack.

Tactical skill born out of a textbook approach to military affairs and emulation of the past may have been all well and good against German barbarians, but the Persians were another matter, with the Sassanids and their scorched-earth tactics being very different from the Achaemenids of Alexander’s time or even the Parthians of Trajan’s. To the end however, Julian did not lack for personal courage – dying from a wound inflicted when he rushed out without his armor to pursue a Sassanid raid on the Roman camp.

RANKING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
RATING: EMPIRE-BASER (or perhaps would-be restorer would be more apt?)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(14) CARUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(282 – 283 AD: 10 MONTHS)

My special mention entry as Crisis of the Third Century counterpart mirroring Lucius Verus, with the similar standout achievement of his (brief) reign as a victorious campaign against the Persians, albeit taking up the campaign prepared by his predecessor Probus.

Indeed, it could be said he outdid Lucius’ Parthian War – as the active leader of a campaign by an empire still recovering from the nadir of the Crisis of the Third Century against the tougher Sassanids, albeit the Sassanids were beset by their own internal crisis and conflicts elsewhere. Also, prior to his Persian campaign and en route to it, he inflicted severe defeats on the Sarmatian and Quadi barbarian invaders at the Danube.

It might even be said that he equalled or even exceeded Trajan’s campaign against the Parthians (although the full extent of his success is unclear from the surviving sources) – annexing Mesopotamia, sacking the Persian royal city of Ctesiphon, and marched his soldiers beyond the Tigris river, thereby avenging all previous defeats of the Romans by the Sassanids and receiving the title of Persicus Maximus as well as his former Germanicus Maximus.

He was then reportedly struck by lightning – so probably assassinated – and like the similar conquests by Trajan, his Persian conquests were immediately relinquished by his successor and mediocre son, Numerian.

He gets some black marks for his possible complicity in the death of his predecessor Probus, his ‘dynasty’ consisting of his mediocre son Numerian and terrible son Carinus, and his final suppression of (and “haughty conduct towards”) the authority of the Senate (in notable contrast to his predecessors Tacitus and Probus).

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XII: The Five Good Emperors

(13) LUCIUS VERUS –
NERVA-ANTONINE / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS (CO-EMPEROR WITH MARCUS AURELIUS)
(161 – 169 AD: 7 YEARS 11 MONTHS)

The mad lad or party boy adoptive brother and co-emperor of Marcus Aurelian everyone forgets about when they talk about the Five Good Emperors. In the words of Spectrum – “Think of a Nero who can actually put in some work and you pretty much get this guy”, albeit I think that’s overstating the comparison with Nero.

Notably, the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus as co-emperors was the first time the Roman Empire was ruled by more than one emperor at the same time – an arrangement that would become increasingly common and indeed institutionalised in the later history of the empire.

His critics declaimed his luxurious lifestyle, literally partying it up almost everywhere he went – staying up till dawn feasting, gambling, and cavorting with actors and other disreputable favorites, including hot ‘low-born’ women such as his mistress Panthea.

In fairness, this is exactly how I would spend my time as Roman emperor and it is at least amusing to picture the Dionysian Lucius partying it up while his straightlaced Stoic adoptive brother Marcus Aurelius stands off to the side tut-tutting it all – with Lucius yelling out as he takes body shots off a hot slave girl, “Meditate this, Marcus!”.

The majority – and standout achievement – of his reign was his direction of yet another Roman war against Parthia. Apparently, “it was decided that Lucius should direct the Parthian War in person” as “he was stronger and healthier than Marcus…more suited to military activity” but that was somewhat belied by Marcus’ conduct of the Marcomannic Wars and suggestive of ulterior motives – “to restrain Lucius’s debaucheries, to make him thrifty, to reform his morals by the terror of war, to realize that he was an emperor”.

Predictably, he partied his way there, “lingering in the famed pleasure resorts of Pamphylia and Cilicia”, ultimately arriving at Antioch to manage the campaign and of course partying it up there. One can’t help but feel the accusations of glamorous lifestyle are overstated – as he had to whip the Syrian legions up into shape, being “on foot at the head of his army as often as on horseback” and personally inspecting “soldiers in the field and at camp, including the sick bay”.

Anyway, the war was a Roman victory, regaining control in Armenia and territory in Mesopotamia. Even if most of the success is credited to his subordinate generals (as it probably should be), he would hardly be the only emperor to rely on the victories of his generals. Once again, the Parthian royal city of Ctesiphon was sacked by Romans – as well as the old Seleucid royal city of Seleucia, the sack of which was not as well received by his contemporaries and which I attribute it to yet another party gone too far. Lucius shared the titles Armeniacus, Medicus and Parthicus Maximus with Marcus Aurelius for the victories.

Unfortunately, the Parthian War did have one dire consequence for the Romans – the Antonine Plague which the Roman soldiers brought back with them, which spread to the wider population and weakened the empire, particularly the army which was worst affected.

Of course, the Antonine Plague wasn’t Lucius’ fault, but neither was he around for the worst of its consequences – he returned to Rome for two years, partying it up but performing his official duties, and saw some initial action in the Marcomannic Wars before dying of illness. The Senate deified him as the Divine Verus.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE-BASER