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

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

The embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good riddance.

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

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

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

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

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