Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Severan Dynasty

(14) SEVERUS ALEXANDER –
SEVERAN DYNASTY
(222 – 235 AD: 13 YEARS 8 DAYS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per Spectrum, “he could have turned out into a good emperor but unfortunately his mother took too long to die”.

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

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

(13) CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY –
GORDIAN III, PHILIP THE ARAB & DECIUS
(238 – 251 AD)

We’re not quite done with the Crisis of the Third Century yet – there’s still these three emperors in succession presiding over almost fourteen years of the Crisis that were just a cut above the other emperors we’ve looked at so far, particularly in the length of their reigns and relative political stability, internally at least.

Interestingly, I rank them in imperial quality in the same chronological order of their succession – that is, each successor was somewhat better than their predecessor.

GORDIAN III
(238-244 AD: 5 YEARS 6 MONTHS)

So we start with the weakest of them first – Gordian III, effectively a child puppet emperor. I mean, it was not exactly auspicious that he was chosen for one of Rome’s lamest “dynasties” – the so-called Gordian dynasty, as grandson of Gordian I and nephew of Gordian II, through his mother Gordiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHILIP THE ARAB
(244-249 AD: 5 YEARS 7-8 MONTHS)

Enter Philip the Arab – one of the more interestingly named emperors, although I think history missed the opportunity to call him Arab Phil, proclaimed as emperor by the troops on campaign against the Persians after Gordian’s death.

And whatever else might be said about him, his reign was “uncommonly stable” – at least internally – particularly for the Crisis of the Third Century. As per Spectrum, “this guy was nothing remarkable until you realize that he was emperor for six years during the Crisis of the Third Century – six years!”

During his reign, Rome celebrated its millennium from its legendary founding. Paying for that as well as effectively building his home town into a new Roman city, tribute to the Persians, and of course the necessary payments to the army for its loyalty left Philip desperately short of funds. For that he did the usual imperial fiscal policy of debasing the currency, but also ruthlessly increasing taxation – and worse, ceasing subsidies to the tribes north of the Danube.

Hence, the Carpi tribe of Dacians raided across the Danube – Philip pushed them back over the Danube in a campaign in 245-246 AD, claiming the victory title Carpicus Maximus, but was not so fortunate when they renewed their raids in 248 AD. In the meantime, there were revolts by legions proclaiming other imperial candidates as well as various usurpers in the Balkans and elsewhere, with the former weakening the Danube frontier – tempting not only the Carpi, but Germanic tribes, worst of all a major incursion by the Goths.

Beset by problems, Philip offered to resign as emperor, but the Senate supported him – most vocally the senator Decius. Philip was so impressed by Decius that he dispatched the latter with a special command for the Balkan provinces to quell both the rebellion and barbarian incursions there. Decius quelled the rebellion but the legions simply proclaimed him emperor instead. Decius marched his forces back towards Rome and tried to come to terms with Philip, but Philip met him in battle instead, being easily defeated and killed, either in the battle or by his own troops.

DECIUS
(249-251: 1 YEAR 8-9 MONTHS)

Enter Decius, perhaps best known as the first Roman emperor to die in battle against a foreign enemy. In this case, the Goths – who had continued their major incursion into the empire and accordingly Decius “engaged in important operations against the Goths” as the focus of his brief reign.

Unfortunately, these operations did not end well for Decius or the empire, with a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Arbritus uncannily echoing the defeat of the Teutoberg Forest. Decius was pursuing the Goths to recapture the captives taken by them in their raids, when his embattled army of three legions became trapped in swampy ground.

It’s hard not to be inspired by Decius exhorting his troops when his own son was killed by an arrow – “Let no one mourn, the death of one soldier is no great loss to the Republic”. However, the deaths of many more soldiers followed when his army was annihilated. A contemporary rumor, albeit highly unlikely, was that Decius had been betrayed by his imperial successor Trebonius Gallus in secret alliance with the Goths.

Prior to that, he is also best known for his imperial persecution of Christianity, “the first empire-wide, officially sanctioned, persecution of Christians” (but not the most severe – that was by Diocletian).

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: The Severan Dynasty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

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

The archetypal brief Crisis of the Third Century emperors prompt to mind the similarly brief reign of Jovian – although he really is in a category of his own, whose brief reign through no real fault of his was seen as a bit of a joke. Really, all he did was preside over the humiliating defeat handed to him by his predecessor – and die…one of the most blackly comic deaths of any Roman emperor.

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

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

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

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBASER (ALBEIT NOT REALLY HIS FAULT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BALBINUS & PUPIENUS
(238 AD: 99 DAYS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUINTILLUS
(270 AD: 17-77 DAYS?)

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

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

FLORIANUS
(276 AD: 80-88 DAYS)

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

AEMILIAN / AEMILIANUS
(253 AD: 88 DAYS?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youtuber Dovhahhatty said it best – “When Odoacer broke through Ravenna’s gates, he didn’t find the all-powerful emperor of the civilized world…instead he found a weak, trembling child unable to protect himself, much less the people he nominally ruled”.

Their archetypal weakness is such that you could arguably swap all of them into my top ten worst emperors and indeed I considered Romulus Augustulus for my wildcard tenth place given how well he symbolized them as well as the irony of his name.

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

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

In the end, I considered that they ranked special mention as opposed to other emperors with more notorious cruelty and depravity or that were more actively destructive – above all from a position or at a time of supreme imperial power.

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

Indeed, it is hard to imagine that even those emperors in my top ten best emperors could have done much from the position of the last western emperors who ruled after Majorian.

So I also considered that it wouldn’t be fair to simply rank the last non-dynastic western Roman emperors in my top ten worst emperors – with the notable exception of Petronius Maximus, whom I did consider to be actively destructive enough for my wildcard tenth place entry. That’s so even for poor Romulus Augustulus despite the notoriety of his name and status as the last western emperor, particularly given that he was a child briefly enthroned by his father as his nickname signified.

However, I have decided to rank them all together in one special mention, although arguably that’s not fair to two or three of them, who might otherwise rank somewhat more favorably as not as archetypally weak as the others or at least put up some resistance to the weakness of their position.

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

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

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

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

OLYBRIUS (472 AD: 7 MONTHS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And pretty much everyone in Rome hated him for it as the “foreign” emperor – as per Spectrum “the army, the Senate, the people, the east”. So yes – he was deposed for his trouble but spared on condition that he became a bishop, although he may well have been killed afterwards anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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