Tag Archives: History

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars: (5) Fourth Polish Partition

Posted on by

Occupation of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939 by Lonio17 for Wikipedia “Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

 

(5) FOURTH PARTITION OF POLAND

(1 SEPTEMBER 1939 – 8 MAY 1945)

 

The invasion and partition of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union – in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, which as popular historian Paul Johnson pointed out was something of a misnomer for what was more accurately a Nazi-Soviet aggression pact against Poland.

Speaking of Paul Johnson, he records an interesting vignette of how easy it was to forget Poland as casus belli of the European war. One guest swept his arm around at a London society wedding on 10 January 1946 to exclaim “After all, this is what we have been fighting for”, only for a female guest to retort “What, are they all Poles?”

And indeed, the invasion of Poland by Germany on 1 September 1939 was the commencement of the Second World War in Europe. The Soviet invasion followed on 17 September 1939, effectively to claim the Polish territory assigned to it under the Pact which in turn reclaimed the territory lost to Poland in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921. But for the Pact, Germany could readily have occupied all of pre-war Poland. As it was, Poland ceased to exist as a state – and alone among the states occupied by Germany, did not have its own collaborationist government but instead the German-administered General Government.

The title of Fourth Partition of Poland is used by some historians in reference to the Three Polish Partitions – the three partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1772 to 1795 by Russia, Prussia and Austria that progressively reduced the Commonwealth until it was eliminated as a state altogether by the third partition and completely divided up among the three partitioning parties.

However, other historians have pointed out that it might well be reckoned the sixth or even higher numbered partition – depending on how one reckons the subsequent restoration of Poland under Napoleon in 1807 and its partitions in 1815 (Congress of Vienna), 1832, 1846, 1848, and 1918 (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk).

I have classed the Fourth Partition of Poland as one of my top ten Second World Wars – indeed in top tier – as the German (and Soviet) war against Poland continued throughout the Second World War, albeit behind other active fronts, particularly in Poland itself behind the Eastern Front.

Active military fronts that is – Poland itself was the front line (or ground zero) of the war Germany fought against the populations of the nations it occupied, above all the Holocaust with it mostly occurring in camps in Poland and Polish Jews representing about half the tally for the Jewish population of Europe killed.

Of course, the most active part of the German war against Poland was its original campaign in September 1939 – which one book title christened as The War Hitler Won, and as H.P. Willmott observed in The Great Crusade, was a war Germany won before a single shot was fired due to its material and positional superiority over Polish forces.

The German victory still surprised observers at the time as being a matter of weeks rather than months. Poland might have had better prospects if weather – General Mud – had been more on its side, if its defense had been better planned or timed, and above all if Britain and France had properly planned or coordinated an offensive against Germany on the Western Front. The failure of the last has been considered as part of the larger Western Betrayal argued by Poles and Czechs from Munich to Yalta.

Even so, Polish forces defended Poland impressively – notably inflicting a similar proportion of casualties (for German personnel killed in action) as the French did in far better defensive circumstances the following year. That was despite the Soviet invasion on 17 September transforming the Polish situation from hopeless to completely hopeless – although as H.P. Willmott points out, it did little to change the military situation in reality other than to remove the Polish option of holding out in the so-called Romanian Bridgehead. As it was, some Polish forces held out even after the fall of Warsaw on 28 September, enduring until the last of them surrendered on 6 October, while others fled or escaped.

However, the war did not end there, either for Polish armed forces or in Poland itself.

With respect to the former, those Polish armed forces that managed to escape or flee continued fighting in Allied forces elsewhere (or in resistance within Poland), particularly as the Polish Armed Forces in the West, led by the Polish government-in-exile based first in France and then in Britain. Indeed, “Polish armed forces were the fourth largest Allied forces in Europe after the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain”, albeit reliant on arms and supplies from other allies.

Among the western allies, Poles served with distinction – perhaps the most famous examples being Polish airmen in the Battle of Britain and the Poles as the Allied “shock troops” in the Battle of Monte Cassino. The Polish navy and merchant marine also fought in the Polish Armed Forces in the West.

After the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the Soviets either released Polish personnel to serve in the Polish Armed Forces in the West or had them raise the Polish Armed Forces in the East, the latter more to Soviet ideological taste.

Arguably even more impactful was the Polish contribution to Allied intelligence. Apparently almost half “of all reports received by the British secret services from continental Europe in between 1939 and 1945 came from Polish sources” – and the Polish intelligence network described as “the only allied intelligence assets on the Continent” (after the French surrender).

Most impactful of all was the vital Polish intelligence contribution towards the decryption of the German Enigma codes, delivered to the western allies only five weeks before the war, and which underlay the British decryption known as ULTRA. Polish intelligence didn’t end there but also provided the Allies with key intelligence about the German camps, V-1 and V-2 rockets, and submarines, as well as an intelligence network for north Africa.

The Polish intelligence contribution to Allied victory has been described as “disproportionately large” and much more effective “than subversive or guerilla activities”.

Speaking of subversive or guerilla activities, finally there was the war in Poland itself – or rather the war on Poland itself. The German campaign may have ended but if anything that only represented an escalation in the German war on Poland – with far more Polish casualties from occupation than the military campaign in 1939. Poland has one of the highest casualties in absolute terms for those killed in the war – approximately 6 million, almost all civilians and over half of which were Polish Jews – and the highest as a proportion of its population, approximately 17%.

Of course, that wasn’t all the German occupation – a small proportion was from the Soviet occupation, most infamously the captured Polish soldiers killed by the Soviets at Katyn.

That prompted Polish resistance movements and the Polish Underground State, with an overall strength that was the largest or one of the largest resistance movements in Europe – in which the largest Polish resistance organization was the Home Army (Army Krajowa or AK), although there was a plethora of other organizations.

The Polish resistance fought two famous uprisings in Warsaw – firstly, the Warsaw Ghetto Rising by the Jews against deportation to the camps in April 1943, and secondly (even more famously and on a larger scale), the Warsaw Uprising in August 1944 as Soviet forces advanced on the city. Equally as famously, those Soviet forces sat it out while the Germans crushed the Uprising, destroying Warsaw far more thoroughly than the German campaign in 1939 did. The Soviet forces were at the limits of their supply and logistic chains, but they were also not inclined to do too much to address that (or otherwise assist the western Allied air forces to drop aid to the Poles), given the convenience of Germany destroying the non-communist Polish resistance.

H.P. Willmott observed the irony that Germany treated Poland atrociously and France leniently, while the reverse might have better suited Germany’s purpose. I have observed that I do not understand why Germany crushed the Warsaw Uprising, when it might have suited Germany better to withdraw to another defensive line, leaving it intact as a potential thorn in the side for the Soviets.

I’ve left the end date of this entry as the surrender of Germany but in effect part of the Polish resistance or underground war and indeed of the partition of Poland continued afterwards with respect to the Soviets – with the latter continuing to this day and onwards, as Poland never retained the loss of its territory from the Soviet part of the Pact.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (4) Sino-Japanese War

Posted on by

The extent of Japanese occupation of China in 1940 – public domain image Wikipedia “Second Sino-Japanese War”

 

(4) SINO-JAPANESE WAR

(18 SEPTEMBER 1931 – 27 FEBRUARY 1932 / 7 JULY 1937 – 2 SEPTEMBER 1945)

 

Like the Anglo-German War, this is the other big one but in reverse – the war no one thinks or talks about for the Second World War, despite its scale, not least reflected in Chinese casualties second only to the Soviets, and despite it being one of two entries in my top ten as the origin of the Second World War itself.

That omission or oversight in popular culture or consciousness is reflected in the usual historiography of the Second World War commencing with the German invasion of Poland, rather than the Japanese war with China that commenced two years earlier – or arguably six years before that with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

Well, for Europeans or Eurocentric history at least – it obviously gets more attention in Asian history. More accurately, it was the Second Sino-Japanese War, after the First Sino-Japanese war fought between Qing China and Japan in 1894-1895.

In fairness, the Sino-Japanese war was largely isolated to the combatant nations of China and Japan, hence it is difficult to see how it would have become a wider war without the war in Europe. The actual combat was isolated to China itself, given that the Chinese forces involved could barely defend themselves or their territory. By barely I mean with extensive losses and limited longer term prospects of continuing to do so without outside aid or intervention, let alone any prospects of ejecting Japanese forces or taking the war to Japan. And of course, isolated is a relative term, given the scale of war with China as the world’s most populous nation and one of its largest in size.

I say largely isolated because there were various degrees of foreign involvement in support to China or on the edges of the war itself. The former surprisingly included aid from Germany at the outset, until Germany aligned itself with Japan and started its own war in Europe – prompting much of the foreign involvement on the edges of the war with Japan seeking to cut off routes of supply to China or resources for its own war effort in south-east Asia, ultimately leading to the larger Pacific War.

Also in fairness, the war received reasonably widespread attention at the outset, both for the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and for the Japanese war with China from 1937, the latter most infamously for the R(a)pe of Nanking or Nanjing, the Chinese southern capital that the Chinese Nationalist government could not defend and had to abandon.

I am only familiar with the basic highlights of the war until the European war in 1939 – the loss of Nanjing of course and the loss of Shanghai that preceded it, the Chinese Nationalist regime under Chiang Kai-shek deciding to blow up the dams of the Yellow River to flood the North China plain to slow the Japanese advance in 1938, and the Chinese government having to retreat first to Wuhan and second to Chungking as its capital.

Looking it up, the battle of Wuhan in 1938 was the largest battle of the war – Wuhan was lost but China managed to hold the city of Changsha through two battles in 1939 and 1941, as well as win victory at Taierzhuang in 1938. In fairness to myself, the major combat operations in this period of the war from 1938 to 1941 are usually not common knowledge.

And in fairness to world attention at the time, the Sino-Japanese war was not only overshadowed by the war in Europe, but also largely settled into stalemate – where Japan had mostly defeated Chinese forces in battle but lacked the forces to extend its occupation further beyond coastal cities or railways in a country that remained overwhelmingly hostile to it. At the same, Chinese forces lacked the ability for anything other than a defensive strategy – that is, avoiding open battle as much as possible while looking for salvation from outside forces, with the Nationalists and Communists also looking ahead to renewed civil war with each other.

However, Japan still had one surprise left for China, even while it was virtually collapsing in the Pacific War against the United States, and one that is almost entirely forgotten or overlooked in most Second World War histories – the Ichigo offensive in 1944. The largest Japanese army offensive of the whole war, it was also the last successful Japanese offensive – astonishingly so and on a scale unequalled for anything else by Japan or Germany at the time.

It was the last of a series of Japanese blows that ultimately proved fatal for the Chinese Nationalist government in the subsequent civil war with the Communists – Japan arguably doing the most of anyone, including the Chinese Communists themselves, to win victory for the Communists in the civil war.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (3) Pacific War

Posted on by

Map of the Pacific War 1943-1945 by user San Jose for Wikimedia Commons under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

 

 

(3) PACIFIC WAR

(7 DECEMBER 1941 – 2 SEPTEMBER 1945)

 

The Eagle against the Sun!

And yes – that’s the title of a book by historian Ronald Spector, one of the best single volume histories of that war.

Like a mirror image of the Nazi-Soviet War on the opposite side of the world and in the vast expanses of sea rather than those of land, the Pacific War was the other central conflict of the Second World War, the war between the United States and Japan as the largest naval war in history.

And yes – again that’s my point, that the Pacific War might well be considered as a war in its own right and indeed having its own title as such, with which the other conflicts in the Second World War (and other wars in Asia) can be seen as overlapping or as prelude or aftermath.

As such, it is a war that can be subject all of itself. Or indeed, many subjects, including as subject or subjects of its own top ten lists – notably battles, but arguably even of a top ten wars list or continuity iceberg like this

It is a war that can effectively be considered or studied in isolation from other theaters or forces other than those of Japan and the United States – as indeed it was fought, with little overlap except the so-called CBI theater (for China-Burma-India) with which it merged to some extent.

Certainly, it was almost entirely separate from the conflict in Europe, except to the extent that it was a secondary commitment to that conflict for the United States in the guise of its Germany First strategy. It’s interesting to consider the possibility that it might have remained entirely separate, but for the German declaration of war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. Of course, on the other hand it is difficult to envisage how the United States would have entered the war but for Pearl Harbor.

However, as H.P. Willmott observes, the American Germany First strategy was somewhat belied by the disposition of American forces in 1943, which more resembled a Pacific First strategy. It was certainly not the case for the American navy, for which the Pacific War remained its primary theater of operations throughout the war – and for the Marines, for which it was their exclusive theater of operation.

While similar in scale, the Pacific War lacked the decisive impact of its Nazi-Soviet counterpart, as Japan was that much weaker than Germany and that much outmatched by its American opponent in the long term that the ultimate outcome was effectively a foregone conclusion.

However, while some parts of the narrative of the war are well known, there often seems to me a curious hiatus in popular culture or imagination about that narrative as a whole.

And that curious hiatus is the Pacific War in popular culture or imagination seems to leap from the dramatic victories of Japan at the outset of the war in the six months from December 1941, at Pearl Harbor and onwards through South East Asia through to its equally dramatic defeat and reversal of fortune in the Battle of Midway in June 1942 – to the dramatic victories of the United States in Iwo Jima or Okinawa in 1945, effectively within the home island territories of Japan itself, or perhaps in the Philippines in 1944 at earliest. Of course, it helps that the staged photograph of the Marines raising the American flag in victory at Iwo Jima is one of the most iconic photographs of the war, if not the most iconic photograph.

In other words, it seems to skip the hard-fought campaigns from 1942 to 1944 or 1945 that brought the United States to those home island territories of Japan – including one of the best and most hard-fought American campaigns in the whole Pacific War, fought in the most arduous circumstances before the American quantitative and qualitative material advantages became truly overwhelming against its Japanese opponent, the campaign in and for Guadalcanal.

In fairness, those campaigns often seem like slogging matches over small islands, yet ironically without the decisive or big battles that capture popular attention or imagination. The latter was increasingly by design, particularly after the Marine casualties capturing the Tarawa atoll in November 1943, when the Americans improved their amphibious landing tactics – but even more so changed their strategy, substituting island-hopping or leapfrogging in which they bypassed Japanese strongholds such as Rabaul to “wither on the vine”.

As such, although they were often surprisingly resilient even when bypassed, many Japanese soldiers were simply left stranded without supplies, dying of starvation or disease without sighting an enemy soldier – or dying again without directly engaging any enemy combatant when their ships were sunk by American submarines.

In that, they reflected the situation of Japan itself, simply writ large for Japan as it was increasingly strangled by the American submarine campaign against its shipping. I often opine on the American submarines as the unsung victors of the war with their decisive contribution to American victory. With a smaller submarine fleet than Germany and initially defective torpedoes to boot (das boot? – heh), it managed to achieve what Germany did not – destroying the shipping of a maritime empire to bring that empire to its knees, albeit helped by Japan’s woeful neglect of anti-submarine warfare.

Japan’s problems were compounded in that it faced not one but two American campaigns in the Pacific – arising from the split between the American navy and army, which essentially saw two separate campaigns by them, the American navy campaign in the central Pacific, and the American army campaign in the south-west Pacific.

(Of course, Japan had its own issues with such a split, only much worse – which effectively saw a successful navy coup in 1944 against the army government under Tojo that had launched the war with the attack on Pearl Harbor).

It may have been better, as historian John Ellis opines, to have resolved the split and focus on the one campaign – the south-west Pacific with its shorter distances – but the fact remains that the Americans had the resources for both while Japan increasingly had them for neither.

As H.P. Willmott observes, the Pacific War was the second such war fought by the United States as it mirrored an earlier war – the American Civil War:

“Between 1941 and 1945, Japan was to the United States what the Confederacy had been 80 years before, and the parallels between the two wars were very considerable. Both wars, each about four years in duration, saw the United States opposed by enemies that relied upon allegedly superior martial qualities to overcome demographic, industrial and positional inferiority, but in both wars the United States’ industrial superiority and ability to mount debilitating blockades proved decisive to the outcome. In both wars, the United States was able to use the advantages of a secure base and exterior lines of communication to bring overwhelming strength to enemies committed to defensive strategies, and which were plagued by divided counsels, while in the military aspects of both wars there were close similarities…

The Union drive down the Mississippi that resulted in the capture of Vicksburg in July 1863 and the separation of the Confederate heartland from Texas has its parallel in the drive across the south-west Pacific to the Philippines to separate Japan from its southern resources area. The battles in the two-way states that culminated in the march through Georgia were not dissimilar from the central Pacific offensive that took American forces to Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the shores of the Japanese home islands”.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (2) Anglo-German War

Posted on by

 

Battle of Britain map – public domain image (Wikipedia – “Battle of Britain”)

 

 

(2) ANGLO-GERMAN WAR

(1 SEPTEMBER 1939 – 8 MAY 1945)

 

This is the big one – the war everyone thinks or talks about for the Second World War, mostly because of the predominance of Anglophone history and popular culture

The war that started with the German invasion of Poland and Britain’s declaration of war on Germany to honor its guarantee to Poland, with a familiar narrative after that – Dunkirk and the fall of France, the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, the war in the Mediterranean and Battle of El Alamein, and ultimately landings in north Africa, Italy, and France.

And yes – the Anglo-German war between Britain and Germany became what would more accurately be described as an Anglo-American war with Germany.

Even for the latter, however, the term Anglo-German war is apt as the Anglo prefix is as applicable to the United States as to Britain, whether in Anglophonic or Anglospheric terms (or both). Indeed, Hitler saw Germany’s ultimate contest for world power against the United States and its economic predominance – which he sought to offset by a Europe united under Germany and particularly by a German empire over the resources of the Soviet Union, with Russia in a similar role to Germany as India in the British Empire (at least as argued by historians such as Adam Tooze).

For that matter, that Anglo prefix is as applicable to the Dominions that were major combatants within the British Commonwealth – Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even South Africa.

However, one should not overlook that for a year of the Second World War, from June 1940 to June 1941, the Second World War was almost entirely an Anglo-German war, with Britain as the only major combatant opposed to Germany, albeit with its Dominions and the Commonwealth.

That was a war very different from what might be characterized as the Franco-German war in the First World War – where France held the line on the Western Front and consequently remained the primary or supreme Allied combatant on land. Of course, Britain and France had the same hope for the Second World War, but the Franco-German component of the war effectively ended with the fall of France, with the primary contest no longer between French and German armies as in the First World War.

Instead, Britain found itself engaged in a war in which it relied predominantly on sea power and airpower against a German army which had won predominance in continental Europe. Of course, Britain had traditionally relied on sea power, as it did in both world wars – adding airpower in the Second World War – and sought to rely on allies with larger forces on land to bring to bear against its opponents.

On the one hand, Germany lacked the sea power and airpower to be able to defeat Britain. It might be observed that all of its major opponents in the Second World War, Germany was only able to defeat France – Britain had too much sea power and airpower, the Soviet Union was too big, and the United States combined the worst of both those worlds along with oceanic distance.

On the other hand, Britain could not defeat or even challenge German predominance on land, even with those allies briefly conjured up on the continent, Greece and Yugoslavia.

As H.P. Willmott noted in The Great Crusade:

“At no point could she challenge Germany’s control of western Europe. Never in British history, not even at the height of British naval supremacy, had British sea power been able to challenge, let alone defeat, a great continental power, and by 1940 the superiority of overland communication meant that German military forces could be moved in greater numbers and more quickly that any British force that attempted to establish itself on the mainland. In addition, the reality of the situation was that British naval power in 1940 was barely able to ensure Britain against defeat by the strangulation of her trade”.

In a sense, this was the war that both Britain and Germany had anticipated in the contest between them, both politically before the war and in the war itself – in which Britain stood as the guardian of the world order and of its world empire or power, secured by victory in the First World War, which Germany sought to challenge.

In The Winds of War, American author Herman Wouk has his German military analyst von Roon evocatively label the war as the War of British Succession – Germany’s bid for world empire to succeed Britain’s falling one – although even von Roon ruefully notes that all it (and the Soviet war effort) achieved was to see one Anglo-Saxon world empire replaced by another.

In that, it was arguably already too late – with the contest between Britain and Germany just shadowboxing over an illusion of world power that had already been eclipsed by the two true world powers, and which would only endure until those two powers ended their isolationism (or had it ended for them) to step into the conflict.

Britain’s strategic hope ultimately relied on the substitution of another power for France as ally with large forces on land to bring to bear against Germany. That hope was understandably focused on the United States but ultimately Britain saw not only one but two powers in that role, eclipsing Britain itself in the war and in the world – firstly the Soviet Union on the eastern front and secondly the United States on the western front.

However, even then it took some time for the United States to eclipse Britain in its army and air force in the European theater – the former in terms of American divisions engaged in combat shortly after the Normandy landings – although the British navy remained predominant in the Atlantic.

Speaking of scale, while even the Anglo-American war against Germany remained secondary to the Nazi-Soviet by a substantial margin, at least on land, it was still of an impressive magnitude – with the invasion of Normandy remaining as the largest seaborne invasion in history.

And speaking of the Normandy invasion, the Anglo-American landings throughout the war remain impressive, not least as that superiority of overland communications for Germany remained a factor to be overcome throughout the war. It is impressive that the Anglo-American alliance pulled off successful major landings not just once but three times – not counting the various minor landings on or about the same time – in north Africa in 1942, in Italy in 1943 (both Sicily and the mainland), and most of all in France in 1944, with the Normandy landings a military feat unequalled then or since.

Once again, while not so much a war in its own right as the previous entry – at least after 1941 given it overlapped with (and relied) on the Nazi-Soviet war to engage the majority of the German army – it is a war that can be a subject all of itself, or indeed many subjects, including that or those of its own top ten list or lists.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars (1) Nazi-Soviet War

Posted on by

German advances during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa from 22 June 1941 to 25 August 1941 – public domain image map by the History Department of the US Military Academy

 

 

(1) NAZI-SOVIET WAR / GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

(22 JUNE 1941 – 8 MAY 1945)

 

Wait – what?

Wasn’t the Nazi-Soviet War – called the Great Patriotic War by the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia – essentially just the Second World War, as in the central or primary theater of military conflict of the war? The First Front, as Winston Churchill readily admitted in his history of the war?

Yes – and that’s my point. The Nazi-Soviet War might well be viewed as THE Second World War – with all the other conflicts in the Second World War overlapping or as prelude or aftermath to the war between Germany and the Soviet Union.

And it is a war that can effectively be considered or studied in isolation from other theaters or conflicts, as a subject all of itself. Or indeed, many subjects, including as subject or subjects of its own top ten lists – notably battles, but arguably even of a top ten wars list or continuity iceberg like this.

It was fought, on land and in air, between the armed forces of the Soviet Union and those of Germany with its European allies – the latter often overlooked, albeit Germany remains of primary importance – with little overlap, at least in terms of military forces, with the other conflicts or theaters elsewhere. Yes – there were also naval forces involved but they were peripheral to the scale of conflict on land and in air.

The primary overlap – in terms of military forces was of course the increasing drain of military commitments imposed by the Western allies on Germany or its European allies in other fronts – albeit for Germany’s European allies that included their increasingly desperate search to desert their alliance with Germany for exit strategies from the war.

However, those commitments remained secondary, even arguably a sideshow, to Germany’s primary conflict on its Eastern Front. Sometimes I quip that the Second World War was, for the Western allies, a timely Anglo-American intervention in a Nazi-Soviet War. Timely that is, for the fate of western Europe and Germany itself, that might otherwise have seen more extensive Soviet occupation and one or two irradiated cities – as at the time of the Normandy invasion, the Soviet Union was quite capable of defeating Germany on its own.

Note that I am speaking in terms of military forces. The Western allies did of course also provide extensive economic support to the Soviet armed forces but I’m speaking strictly in terms of armed forces in actual fighting – as per Stalin, “how many divisions has he got?”. However, it is a pet peeve of mine when people attribute the survival of the Soviet Union in 1941 or even 1942 to Allied economic support or Lend-Lease. Such things are difficult to quantify and Allied economic support certainly aided Soviet victories from 1943 onwards – but is far less clear for the successful Soviet defense of itself in 1941 or 1942 as the large majority of Lend-Lease was from 1943 onwards.

There is also its sheer scale of combatants and casualties – still the largest invasion and land war in history.

In terms of scale of combat, the Soviet Union mobilized over 34 million men and women for its armed forces – almost twice as many as the next largest combatant, Germany (as well as more than twice as many than either the United States or China.

Indeed, the Soviet Union represented more than a quarter of men or women mobilized in the entire war (over 127 million). And when one considers that the large majority of men mobilized by Germany (about 18 million) were for its war with the Soviet Union, as it was for its European allies, then easily over a third of all men and women mobilized for armed forces in the Second World War were or in for the Nazi-Soviet War.

Not to mention the scale of casualties – the Soviet Union had almost 27 million people killed, at least a third of the highest estimates for 80 million people killed in the whole war. When you consider once again the large majority of those killed for Germany and its European allies were in the Nazi-Soviet War, then you’d be getting close to half all casualties in the entire war – particularly if one were to include casualties for Poland (and I think there’s a strong argument for that).

There’s also the sheer scale of impact – which can be simply stated that on any account of it, the Nazi-Soviet war was the decisive conflict within the Second World War. It’s instructive to recall the ideologies underlying this impact – and perhaps a bit humbling to reflect how much the victory of liberal democracy in the twentieth century depending on the contigency of the casualties communism could sustain fighting fascism (as well as the concentration of economic power in the United States).

And then there’s the narrative of the Nazi-Soviet war, reasonably well known in broad outline albeit somewhat distorted or obscured in historiography until recently.

The broad outline essentially follows each year of the war. The first year of war – from 22 June 1941 to June 1942 essentially follows the German invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa – and its defeat in its advance on Moscow.

The second year of war – from June 1942 to June the following year – essentially follows the German campaign in Case Blue against Stalingrad and the Caucasus Mountains – and its defeat.

The first two years of the Nazi-Soviet War often seem to present something of a paradox, as observed by H.P. Willmott:

“From today’s perspective, it seems incredible that Germany could have conquered so much of the Soviet Union in 1941 and 1942 and that on two separate occasions could have brought her to within measurable distance of defeat. Hindsight provides the element of inevitability that suggests German defeat in his campaign was assured because the first time, Hitler raised the scale of conflict to levels that Germany could not sustain…and herein lies a paradox: before the campaign began there would seem to have been no means whereby Germany could prevail, yet once the campaign started it would seem impossible for her to lose”.

That paradox is resolved by a closer study of the war, but a large part of it is that the Soviet Union fought back from the outset, if not always well then certainly hard – imposing costs in casualties and time which Germany and its allies ultimately could not pay.

Something of this can be observed in the diminishing returns of Germany’s successive campaigns – that whereas the German campaign in 1941 was on all three parts of the front (north, central, and south – albeit shuffling between them as it went), the German campaign in 1942 was only on one part of the front, in the south.

Those returns diminished further with the German campaign that commenced the third year of the war – Operation Citadel against Kursk – where the German campaign was not only on one part of the front, the centre, but a smaller part even of that. And for the first time, the German campaign was defeated in the summer when it was launched.

Thereafter, the Germans were on the defensive or outright retreat from the relentless Soviet advances, albeit slowly in that third year. While it was the Soviet army that had originated (prior to the war) the true ‘blitzkrieg’ of the war – the concept of the ‘deep battle’ or ‘deep space battle’, a strategy aimed at destroying enemy command and control centers as well as lines of communication – it lacked the means to employ this strategy fully until the fourth year of war, when it had sufficient elite or experienced armored and mechanized formations as well as the logistics and mobility to support them.

And oh boy, it showed with the Soviet campaign that opened the fourth and final year of war – Operation Bagration, named for a Russian general in the Napoleonic Wars, on the anniversary of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June. The Red Army took one of Nazi Germany’s three army groups on the Eastern Front, Army Group Center in Belorussia and Poland, completely by surprise – effectively destroying it, while exposing Army Group North to siege in the Baltic states and Army Group South to attack in the Balkans.

Operation Bagration well deserves to be compared as equal to the success of Operation Barbarossa for Nazi Germany, but without the same sting of ultimate defeat as the latter – although at least one subsequent Soviet campaign was arguably even better.

Indeed, by 1945, it is possible to argue, as Willmott does, the complete transposition of the German and Soviet armies in terms of military proficiency. By 1945, “the operational and technical quality of the Soviet army was at least the equal of the Wehrmacht at its peak” (with the Soviet Vistula-Oder offensive in January 1945 “perhaps the peak of Soviet military achievement in the course of the European war”).

On the other hand, “the German army of 1944-45, for all its reputation, had the characteristics so meticulously catalogued when displayed by the Soviet army in 1941: erratic and inconsistent direction, a high command packed with place-men and stripped of operational talent, the dead hand of blind obedience imposed by political commissars upon an officer corps despised and distrusted by its political master, failure at every level of command and operations”.

 

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Second World Wars

Posted on by

Screenshot of collage of images used as feature image for Wikipedia “World War II” – some public domain (top right, middle left, bottom left and right) and others (top left and middle right) licensed from German archive footage under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en

 

TOP 10 SECOND WORLD WARS

 

One of my favorite quips is that the Second World War is the American Iliad while the Cold War is the American Odyssey.

As usual, I’m joking and serious – but seriously, I’d go even further in that the Second World War is the modern Iliad, the modern historical epic of war.

And as such, I thought I’d compile my Top Second World Wars

Wait – what? Top 10 Second World…Wars? Plural?!

No – I’m not missing another noun there, such as Top 10 Second World War Battles, Top 10 Second World War Theaters, or Top 10 Second World War Campaigns. Those are subjects for their own top ten lists, indeed quite extensive ones, along with other Second World War subjects, albeit there is some overlap between theaters or campaigns and the present subject.

No – this isn’t some rhetorical sleight of hand, where I define some other previous conflicts as the first and second world war respectively. Again, the subject of conflicts that might be categorized as world wars – including but beyond the two world wars labelled as such – is surprisingly extensive, deserving of its own top ten.

So…what then? Wasn’t there only the one Second World War?

Well, yes – except perhaps when there wasn’t.

My tongue is (mostly) in my cheek – it’s one of my top ten lists where I look at a subject which has a fundamental continuity… but which also can be demarcated into distinct parts in their own right. If you prefer, you can think of it as my Second World War iceberg meme – in this case an iceberg of Second World War continuity. Hence, I won’t be doing my usual top ten countdown but just counting them out.

I can illustrate my point by posing a simple question – when did the Second World War start?

A simple question with what seems a straightforward answer – 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland.

But is it so straightforward? Well, perhaps for the fundamental continuity of the war waged by and against Germany, but that is to focus on Europe rather than Asia. If one shifts to a historical focus on the latter, one might well substitute 7 July 1937, with Japan launching its full-scale war on China. Even then, one could look back to the earlier Japanese invasion of Manchuria on 19 September 1931 – or for that matter, even in Europe, to the background to the German invasion of Poland.

And that is my point. While wars may have a fundamental continuity that leads to them being described as a single whole in history with definitive starting or ending dates, they may also consist of – or evolve from or into – overlapping conflicts, particularly when they have a sufficient span or scale. Perhaps none more so than considering the largest war in history, at least in absolute terms, fought on a global scale for six years – the Second World War.

What is my baseline of the Second World War – or surface of the Second World War continuity iceberg? I define it according to the conventional historical frame and timeline of the Second World War – the war against Germany and its allies, subsequent to its invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, outlasting the surrender of Germany itself for a few months against Germany’s last ally standing, Japan, until the formal surrender of Japan on 2 September 1945.

So that said, these are my Top 10 Second World…Wars.

Top Tens – History (Rome): Complete Roman Emperor Rankings (1-98)

Posted on by

Collage of the first Roman emperor Augustus and the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus from Dovahatty- Unbiased History of Rome IX: Augustus and Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: Fall of Rome respectively

 

Dilettantes think about the Roman Empire. True Roman connoisseurs rank the Roman emperors.

And obsessive-compulsive Roman connoisseurs compile their complete rankings of Roman emperors, albeit with abbreviated entries.

I’ve previously ranked the Roman emperors but I did so in my usual top ten format – my Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors, twenty special mentions for each category (best and worst), and honorable mentions in each category (best and worst) for emperors of “ambiguous legitimacy” (typically as usurpers) or “varying ascribed status” (typically as child emperors).

So here they all are in abbreviated entries as one complete ranking from best to worst – for the “classical” Roman emperors from the first emperor Augustus to the last western emperor Romulus Augustulus. Well, except for Zeno because screw that guy! Just kidding – he was actually pretty decent as emperor but I have omitted him because he only briefly reigned (in the eastern empire) before Romulus Augustulus was deposed (indeed he was reigning eastern emperor at that time) with most of his reign being after the end of the western empire.

 

TOP 10 BEST ROMAN EMPERORS

 

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

(1) AUGUSTUS – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(16 JANUARY 27 BC – 19 AUGUST 14 AD: 40 YEARS 7 MONTHS 3 DAYS)

 

Felicior Augusto – “May you be more fortunate than Augustus…”

THE Roman emperor – the first and best emperor, the definitive and archetypal emperor, the OG and GOAT emperor.

The most august emperor – the most Augustus of Augustuses.

 

(2) TRAJAN – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(28 JANUARY 98 AD – 9 AUGUST? 117 AD: 19 YEARS 6 MONTHS 10/14 DAYS)

 

Melior Traiano – “and greater than Trajan”

The Optimus Prime of Roman emperors – Optimus or Optimus Princeps, “the best” or “the best emperor”.

 

 

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

(AUGUST 270 AD – NOVEMBER 275 AD: 5 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

 

Restitutor Orbis – the Restorer of the World.

 

Aurelian, Aurelian, we love you

But we only have five years to save the Roman Empire!

 

(4) HADRIAN – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(11 AUGUST 117 AD – 10 JULY 138 AD: 20 YEARS 10 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

The definitive Roman emperor, famed for his Wall.

 

(5) CONSTANTINE – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY

(25 JULY 306 AD – 22 MAY 337 AD: 30 YEARS 9 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

In hoc signo vinces – “in this sign thou shalt conquer”.

Constantine the Great – Diocletian may have created the Dominate but Constantine…dominated it (heh).

 

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

(6) MARCUS AURELIUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(7 MARCH 161 AD – 17 MARCH 180 AD: 19 YEARS 10 DAYS)

 

Best known as the Stoic philosopher-emperor and for his Meditations.

The cool old emperor in Gladiator.

 

(7) PROBUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JUNE 276 AD – SEPTEMBER 283 AD: 6 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

 

Usually overlooked among Roman emperors, Probus deserves to be hailed with Aurelian as the saviors of the empire in the Crisis of the Third Century – one of “the soldier emperors who saved Rome”.

 

(8) DIOCLETIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(20 NOVEMBER 284 AD – 1 MAY 305 AD: 20 YEARS 5 MONTHS 11 DAYS)

 

Dominus of the Dominate – Diocletian ended the Crisis of the Third Century and stabilized the empire, instituting the Dominate and the Tetrarchy.

Also achieved the capstone of imperial achievement – peaceful retirement.

 

(9) VALENTINIAN – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(25/26 FEBRUARY 364 AD – 17 NOVEMBER 375 AD: 11 YEARS 8 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

 

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides – by barbarians. And he will strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger. And they will know his name is…Valentinian

 

(10) MAJORIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS: WESTERN EMPIRE

(28 DECEMBER 457 AD – 2 AUGUST 461 AD: 4 YEARS 11 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

As per Edward Gibbon, Majorian “presents the welcome discovery of a great and heroic character, such as sometimes arise, in a degenerate age, to vindicate the honour of the human species”.

 

Majorian (and Probus) might well be ranked by me above other top-tier candidates for my top ten (from my special mentions) but I consider their achievements earn them that ranking – particularly in relative terms of the position they inherited – and are unfairly overlooked among emperors.

 

TOP 10 BEST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(11) VESPASIAN – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(1 JULY 69 – 23 JUNE 79 AD: 9 YEARS 11 MONTHS 22 DAYS)

 

Founder of the Flavian dynasty and restorer of the Pax Romana from the civil war of succession in the first century.

 

(12) CLADIUS – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(24 JANUARY 41 AD – 13 OCTOBER 54 AD: 13 YEARS 8 MONTHS 19 DAYS)

 

“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”.

Turned the empire around after inheriting it from its worst emperor – an able and efficient administrator, above all restoring the empire’s finances.

 

(13) DOMITIAN – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(14 SEPTEMBER 81 AD – 18 SEPTEMBER 96 AD: 15 YEARS 4 DAYS)

 

Modern historians have increasingly seen Domitian’s reign as laying the foundation of the golden age that immediately succeeded him (or at least did via a brief interregnum via Nerva). His reign was distinctive or even unique for its economic success, above all in revaluing the currency. Whether or not as per Spectrum he “was the only emperor to have actually fixed the problem of inflation, the only one”, he certainly “maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve”.

 

(14) TIBERIUS – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(17 SEPTEMBER 14 – 16 MARCH 37 AD: 22 YEARS 5 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

 

Successor to Augustus – consolidated the empire and left the imperial treasury in huge surplus.

 

(15) ANTONINUS PIUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(10 JULY 138 AD – 7 MARCH 161 AD: 22 YEARS 7 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

 

My man Tony Pius, the man who maxed the pax of the Pax Romana – “His reign was the most peaceful in the entire history of the Principate” – which I would hazard to guess makes it the most peaceful in the entire history of the classical empire, given how much less peaceful the Dominate was.

 

(16) MARCIAN – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(25 AUGUST 450 AD – 27 JANUARY 457 AD: 6 YEARS 5 MONTHS 2 DAYS)

 

Sadly overlooked and underrated among Roman emperors – except among sources from the eastern Roman empire, with his reign often looked back on as a golden age and the people of Constantinople shouting “Reign like Marcian!” at the accession of subsequent emperors.

Took on the Huns in their own heartland – “Marcian secured the Eastern Empire both politically and financially”, and left the treasury with a surplus, reversing its near bankruptcy in which it had been when he acceded to the throne.

 

(17) CONSTANTIUS III – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(8 FEBRUARY – 2 SEPTEMBER 421 AD: 6 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

 

An emperor who should be ranked highly for his achievement in stabilizing the fifth century western empire, an achievement that would have been more enduring but for his short reign, truncated by illness.

 

(18) CLAUDIUS II / CLAUDIUS GOTHICUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER 268 AD – AUGUST 270 AD: 1 YEAR 11 MONTHS)

 

The first of the so-called Illyrian emperors who renewed and led the Roman empire – turned the tide on the Crisis of the Third Century, laying the foundations for Aurelian and Probus to restore the empire, particularly by the victory of his title against the Goths, “one of the greatest in the history of Roman arms”.

 

(19) CONSTANTIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(1 MAY 305 AD – 25 JULY 306 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

 

Constantius might well have ranked higher but for his short reign as augustus or senior emperor in the West – the capstone of achievements as junior emperor or caesar for over 12 years from 293 AD, defeating the Carausian Revolt and Germanic tribes at the Rhine.

 

(20) TITUS – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(24 JUNE 79 AD – 13 SEPTEMBER 81 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS 20 DAYS)

 

Built on the achievements of his father Vespasian – literally building in the case of completing the Colosseum, the achievement for which he is best known as emperor, and figuratively, coinciding with his most outstanding achievement being prior to his imperial accession, winning decisive victory in the First Jewish War.

 

And yes – I’ve shuffled those special mention entries from my original ranking, notably upgrading Constantius II after reading Peter Heather’s The Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

And now we come to some special mention matched pairings, in which one emperor is similar to or echoed by another emperor in the Crisis of the Third Century – also while good, drop down a tier from top-tier to high-tier, often coinciding with a mixed or even negative reputation.

 

(21) CONSTANTIUS II – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 AD – 3 NOVEMBER 361 AD: 24 YEARS 1 MONTH 25 DAYS)

 

(22) GALLIENUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY:

WESTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(SEPTEMBER 253 AD – SEPTEMBER 268 AD: 15 YEARS)

 

Two beleagured emperors who holding the line of the empire during their reigns.

Constantius II has a mixed reputation but deserves his place among the good emperors for holding the empire together for almost two and a half decades – despite his brothers fighting each other, usurpers, civil war, and Germanic barbarian tribes, all while waging war with the Persian Sassanid empire for most of his reign.

Gallienus was the Crisis counterpart of Constantius II – holding the line as the empire faced “disease rampant, endless barbarian invasions, entire provinces seceding, and God knows how many usurpers”.

 

 

(23) LUCIUS VERUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(7 MARCH 161 AD – JANUARY / FEBRUARY 169 AD: 7 YEARS 11 MONTHS)

 

(24) CARUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER 282 AD – JULY / AUGUST 283 AD: 10 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors who won impressive victories against the successive Persian empires, Parthians and Sassanids.

Lucius Verus – 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. “Meditate this, Marcus!” Led the Romans to victories over the Parthians, regaining control in Armenia and territory in Mesopotamia as well as sacking the Parthian royal city of Ctesiphon.

Carus – Crisis of the Third Century counterpart mirroring Lucius Verus, arguably outdoing 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, again sacking the Persian royal city of Ctesiphon.

 

(25) JULIAN – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY

(3 NOVEMBER 361 AD – 26 JUNE 363 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

 

(26) VALERIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(SEPTEMBER 253 AD – JUNE 260 AD: 6 YEARS 9 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors with impressive achievements, particularly in the military field prior to their accession, but undone by defeat against the Persians.

Julian – “Thou has conquered, Galilean”. The Apostate or the Philosopher, reflecting his attempted revival of classical paganism.

Valerian – 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.

 

(27) NERVA – NERVA-ANTONINE / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(18 SEPTEMBER 96 AD – 27 JANUARY 98 AD: 1 YEAR 4 MONTHS 9 DAYS)

 

(28) TACITUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(DECEMBER 275 AD – JUNE 276 AD: 7 MONTHS)

 

Nerva – the first (and least) of the Five Good Emperors. 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.

Tacitus – no, not the historian that everyone knows when they hear the name, but Crisis counterpart of Nerva. Both were essentially (elderly) senatorial caretaker or placeholder emperors, enabling the stable succession of imperial authority from an assassinated predecessor.

 

C-TIER (MID-TIER)

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE SEPARATING GOOD FROM BAD EMPERORS

 

(29) PERTINAX – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FIVE EMPERORS

(1 JANUARY – 28 MARCH 193 AD: 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

(30) MAXIMINUS THRAX –

NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(MARCH 235 AD – JUNE 238 AD: 3 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

 

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.

Maximinus Thrax – archetypal barracks emperor, who secured the German frontier of the empire, at least for a while.

 

TOP 10 BEST ROMAN EMPERORS (HONORABLE MENTION)

 

ULPIA SEVERINA – FIRST AND LAST EMPRESS OF THE CLASSICAL ROMAN EMPIRE

(275 AD: 5-11 WEEKS – 6 MONTHS?)

 

I’m not giving her a numbered ranking since her ‘reign’ as widow of Aurelian really boils down to a few coins minted in her name (and she does not appear in the Wikipedia list of Roman emperors accordingly).

However, I’ll just leave her here as I like the romantic speculation of her as first and last empress of the classical Roman Empire.

 

 

(31) VETRANIO – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(1 MARCH – 25 DECEMBER 350 AD: 9 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

 

One of three good usurpers of the classical Roman empire – counter-usurper against another usurper (Magnentius), abandoning his claim when meeting Constantius II and earning himself peaceful retirement

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE…OR IS THAT MY EUGENIUS-JOHANNES LINE SEPARATING GOOD USURPERS FROM BAD EMPERORS?

 

(32) EUGENIUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(22 AUGUST 392 AD – 6 SEPTEMBER 394 AD: 2 YEARS 15 DAYS)

 

One of the great what-ifs of the late Roman empire – that the western empire would have fared better or at least stalled its fall longer if he and military commander Arbogast had won the Battle of the Frigidus in 394 AD. Or even better, if they had not fought it at all, with the eastern emperor Theodosius recognizing Eugenius as western emperor instead. At very least, the western empire would have been spared Honorius.

 

 

(33) JOHANNES – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(20 NOVEMBER 423 AD – MAY 425 AD: 1 YEAR 6 MONTHS)

 

If Eugenius would have spared the western empire Honorius, Johannes would have spared it Valentinian III.

 

AND NOW…THE BAD

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE…OR IS THAT MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS LINE SEPARATING BAD FROM GOOD EMPERORS?

 

Okay, okay, that might seem wrong, ranking Septimius Severus and Theodosius just over the line as ‘bad’ emperors, let alone ranking them below Pertinax and Maximinus Thrax or usurpers such as Eugenius and Johannes, when ranking them alongside Constantius II and Gallienus as good but flawed emperors might seem more accurate…but I just can’t forgive them their wretched dynasties. Also…

 

(34) SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(9 APRIL 193 AD – 4 FEBRUARY 211 AD: 17 YEARS 9 MONTHS 26 DAYS)

 

Yes, probably the best of the bad options in the Year of Five Emperors but as per Spectrum “he was the one who started debasing the currency like a madman in order to increase his soldiers’ pay. On one hand, keeping himself in power was the reason why. On the other, a lot of the problems the empire faced later down the line and possibly the reason it fell in the first place can be chalked up to him”.

 

 

(35) THEODOSIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(19 JANUARY 379 AD – 17 JANUARY 395 AD: 15 YEARS 11 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

Theodosius the so-called Great. Founder of the worst dynasty of the classical Roman empire. Yes, again he probably did the best of bad options open to the empire after the Battle of Adrianople but was kicking the can down the road for the empire to pick up later – with the fall of the western empire. As per Dovahhatty, “I’m busy thinking how to be horrible at everything and yet still be remembered as ‘great'”

 

MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS LINE…OR IS THAT MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS II LINE SEPARATING BAD FROM GOOD EMPERORS?

 

Okay, okay – one might extend the line through Leo to Theodosius II as borderline ‘bad’ emperors. Again, it might seem wrong ranking either just over the line as bad emperors, let alone ranking them below Pertinax and Maximinus Thrax or Eugenius and Johannes – when again ranking them as alongside Constantius II and Gallienus as good but flawed emperors might seem more apt, but…

 

(36) LEO – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(7 FEBRUARY 457 – 18 JANUARY 474 AD: 16 YEARS 11 MONTHS 11 DAYS)

 

Yes – he did found the Leonid dynasty and hence earned the title of Leo the Great, a dynasty that was decent enough and saw the eastern empire outlast the western empire. Yes – he also overthrew the Gothic military clique under Aspar that dominated the eastern empire, hence earning the title of Leo the Butcher.

And yes – he also attempted to save the western empire as it fell, particularly with his naval expedition to reclaim north Africa from the Vandals but…for the disastrous defeat of that expedition at the Battle of Cape Bon, bankrupting his eastern empire and dooming the western one, even if that defeat was primarily the fault of the fleet’s commander (and Leo’s brother-in-law) Basiliscus. That had to cost him my ranking as good emperor.

 

(37) THEODOSIUS II – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(1 MAY 408 AD – 28 JULY 450 AD: 42 YEARS 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

Yes – I have more respect for the eastern empire in general and Theodosius II in particular after reading Peter Heather’s The Fall of the Roman Empire as neither was quite as supine towards the fall of the western empire as is usually perceived. And also after all, the reign of Theodosius did see the eastern empire avoid the same scale of disaster that befell its western counterpart.

But…his reign also saw the empire ravaged by the Huns effectively to the point of surrender by tribute to them – which also precluded a joint naval expedition with the western empire against the Vandals in north Africa to salvage the western empire. And it also saw one intervention too many in the western empire to reclaim it for Valentinian III, when it would have been better left to Johannes.

 

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

(38) GRATIAN – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 NOVEMBER 375 AD – 25 AUGUST 383 AD: 7 YEARS 9 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(39) CONSTANS – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 AD – JANUARY 350 AD: 12 YEARS 4 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors with uncannily similar reigns, despite being separated by forty years or so and successive dynasties – both succeeded great emperors and founders of dynasties (for whom the dynasties were named) as their sons, both began as child emperors in circumstances where others had designs on them as puppets, both were western emperors who were reasonably robust in defending the western empire, and both were usurped and killed when their legions deserted them due to them ‘favoring’ their barbarian soldiers in suggestive ways

 

(40) VALENS – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(364 AD – 378 AD: 14 YEARS 4 MONTHS 12 DAYS)

 

Gothicus Minimus, amirite?

I mean, his infamous defeat at the Battle of Adrianople has got to cost him in the rankings. However, it shouldn’t cost him disproportionately to a reasonably competent imperial administration, hence I don’t rank him in the bottom tier – and still ahead of most other emperors, although that is more a result of just how bad most Roman emperors were…

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(41) CONSTANTINE III – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(407-411 AD: 4 YEARS)

 

The usurper I rank as least bad, because it’s hard not to have a sneaking admiration for him – a common soldier in Roman Britain who rose to usurp Honorius to the point that the latter had to recognize him as co-emperor for a short period. Also because he rose to literal legendary status in Britain, even as high as being identified as the grandfather of King Arthur. He’d at least outrank Constantine II if ever I was to rank my Top 10 Constantines (note to self – rank my Top 10 Constantines, although that will have to await my Byzantine emperor rankings as most of the Constantines were eastern Roman emperors).

Shout-out to his son and co-emperor Constans – I simply place him here unranked because he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Constantine.

 

(42) MAGNUS MAXIMUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

(43) MAGNENTIUS – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

Two usurpers, similar to each other as they usurped similar emperors – Constans in the case of Magnentius and Gratian in the case of Magnus Maximus. The latter took his title as the best and greatest – he wasn’t either but he and Magnentius were not too bad as usurpers go, although I rank them both below the emperors they usurped (but not by much).

Shout-out to Victor as son and co-emperor of Maximus, suffering the same fate of defeat and execution as his father – I simply place him here unranked because he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Maximus.

 

(44) MAXENTIUS – USURPER: TETRARCHY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

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

Ironically, that sees him outrank all other members of the Tetrarchy other than Diocletian (who died before his accession), Constantius, and Constantine – which is probably more a comment on their bad quality. He out-maneuvered his own father Maximian, while also defeating Severus II and Galerius. It’s probably a little unfair to Licinius though, given that Licinius allied with Constantine to defeat him. Still, he had it coming by Constantine. Speaking of the Tetrarchy…

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

TETRARCHY –

 

(45) GALERIUS (EASTERN EMPIRE):

(1 MAY 305 AD – MAY 311 AD: 6 YEARS)

 

(46) MAXIMIAN (WESTERN EMPIRE):

(1 APRIL 286 AD – 1 MAY 305 AD: 19 YEARS 1 MONTH)

(NOVEMBER 306 AD – 11 NOVEMBER 308 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

(47) LICINIUS (WESTERN THEN EASTERN EMPIRE):

(11 NOVEMBER 308 AD – 19 SEPTEMBER 321 AD: 15 YEARS 10 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(48) MAXIMINUS II / MAXIMINUS “DAZA” (EASTERN EMPIRE):

(310 AD – JULY 313 AD: 3 YEARS)

 

(49) SEVERUS II (WESTERN EMPIRE):

(AUGUST 306 AD – MARCH / APRIL 307 AD: 8 MONTHS)

 

The Tetrarchy was a bit of a hot mess 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, with most of them ultimately proving to be only foils to Constantine in one form or another. That pretty much sums them up – screwing up without Diocletian until they were pawned by Constantine.

So I’ve lumped them all together in my rankings – perhaps somewhat unfairly for Galerius who might have ranked higher (perhaps as high as Valens or Gratian, although he was defeated by Maxentius), just about right for Maximian and Licinius (although perhaps Licinius might have ranked highest among these Tetrarchy emperors for political cunning and endurance), and pulling up Maximinus II and Severus II. (Severus might well have ranked down with the more F-tier Crisis emperors, with Maximinus not too far behind).

 

 

(50) DECIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 249 AD – JUNE 251 AD: 1 YEAR 8-9 MONTHS)

 

(51) PHILIP THE ARAB – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(FEBRUARY 244 AD – SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 249 AD: 5 YEARS 7-8 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors in succession presiding over almost eight years of the Crisis that were just a cut above the worst emperors of the Crisis.

And it was a close call between them – Philip had the longer reign but I just like Decius more, what with his exhortation to his troops after his son was killed in battle (and before his own death in that battle): “Let no one mourn, the death of one soldier is no great loss to the Republic”.

 

(52) SEVERUS ALEXANDER – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(14 MARCH 222 AD – MARCH 235 AD: 13 YEARS 8 DAYS)

 

(53) GORDIAN III – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(AUGUST 238 AD – FEBRUARY 244 AD: 5 YEARS 6 MONTHS)

 

And now we come to two similar emperors, both effectively commencing as child emperors – indeed the first and second youngest sole emperors of the whole empire respectively – puppeted by their mothers. Gordian was the weaker of the two – Severus Alexander may well have become more effective but for the military coup that overthrew and killed him, kicking off the Crisis of the Third Century. As per Spectrum, “he could have turned out into a good emperor but unfortunately his mother took too long to die”.

 

 

(54) JOVIAN – NON-DYNASTIC (CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY)

(27 JUNE 363 AD – 17 FEBRUARY 364 AD: 7 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

 

Jovian really is in a category of his own, whose brief reign was seen as a bit of a joke. It wasn’t really his fault – all he did was have defeat handed to him from his predecessor and then die, but he probably did the best anyone could in those circumstances.

 

 

(55) MACRINUS – NON-DYNASTIC (SEVERAN DYNASTY)

(11 APRIL 217 AD – 8 JUNE 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.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(56) PROCOPIUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

Procopius gave it a damn good shot usurping the eastern emperor Valens, in the capital Constantinople no less, such that Valens almost gave up in despair. Almost gave up, that is, but not quite – with Valens pulling through to win and execute Procopius.

 

(57) NEPOTIANUS – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(3-30 JUNE 350 AD: 27 DAYS)

 

Counter-usurper to Magnentius in Rome – ranks better than the brevity of a reign of only 27 days might suggest – for doing it by literal gladiatorial coup. I have to admire his sheer ballsiness in that he didn’t even have any soldiers for his attempt, but instead entered Rome with a band of gladiators. Gladiators! And pulled it off enough that Rome’s prefect and loyal supporter of Magnentius had to flee the city. This is what the Gladiator sequel film should have featured!

 

(58) MARTINIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

(JULY – 19 SEPTEMBER 324 AD: 2 MONTHS)

 

(59) VALERIUS VALENS – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

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

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

 

(60) SALONINUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(260 AD: 1 MONTH)

 

Saloninus was briefly co-emperor as son of the reigning emperor Gallienus. Gallienus had sent him to Gaul, not as co-emperor but as caesar – only to be declared emperor by his troops in a short-lived effort to stave off revolt before handing him over anyway

 

(61) HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

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

 

(62) HOSTILIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JUNE-JULY 251 AD: 1 MONTH)

 

Co-emperors as sons of the emperor Decius.

Hostilian was the surviving son of Decius, whom Decius’ successor Trebonianus Gallus proclaimed as his co-emperor to lend some legitimacy and continuity to his reign, only for Hostilian to die of disease shortly afterwards.

Herennius died in battle – the same Battle of Arbritus against the Goths in which his father Decius was defeated and killed.

 

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(63) GALBA – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FOUR EMPERORS

(8 JUNE 68 AD – 15 JANUARY 69 AD: 7 MONTHS 7 DAYS)

 

(64) OTHO – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FOUR EMPERORS

(15 JANUARY – 16 APRIL 69 AD: 3 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

The two emperors who kicked off the Year of Four Emperors. Of Galba, Tacitus said “that all would have agreed he was equal to the imperial office if he had never held it”, while 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.

And Otho? Well, he was worse – Nero-level worse.

 

CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY EMPERORS –

 

(65) NUMERIAN:

(JULY / AUGUST 283 AD – NOVEMBER 284 AD: 1 YEAR 3-4 MONTHS)

 

(66) AEMILIANUS:

(JULY – SEPTEMBER 253 AD: 88 DAYS?)

 

(67) FLORIANUS:

(JUNE – SEPTEMBER 276 AD: 80-88 DAYS)

 

(68) QUINTILLUS:

(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 270 AD: 17-77 DAYS?)

 

(69) GORDIAN II:

(APRIL-MAY 238 AD: 22 DAYS)

 

(70) GORDIAN:

(APRIL-MAY 238 AD: 22 DAYS)

 

(71) PUPIENUS:

(MAY-AUGUST 238 AD: 99 DAYS)

 

(72) BALBINUS:

(MAY-AUGUST 238 AD: 99 DAYS)

 

The archetypal weak emperors 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.

Balbinus and Pupienus were co-emperors, as were Gordian and his son Gordian II – all hawked up and spat out by the Year of Six Emperors. Quintillus may have been emperor as little as 17 days – and also was up against Aurelian. Florianus and Amelianus were defeated by better rivals. Numerian was a little like Jovian, except with the Praetorian Guard playing weekend at Bernie’s with his corpse.

 

(73) VALENTINIAN II – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(28 AUGUST 388 AD – 15 MAY 392 AD: 3 YEARS 8 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

 

Precursor of the weak puppet last western emperors. Speaking of which…

 

LAST WESTERN EMPERORS –

 

(74) ANTHEMIUS

(12 APRL 467- 11 JULY 472 AD: 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

(75) AVITUS

(9 JULY 455 AD – 17 OCTOBER 456 AD: 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(76) JULIUS NEPOS

(24 JUNE 474 AD – 28 AUGUST 475 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

(77) ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS

(31 OCTOBER 475 AD – 24 JUNE 476 AD: 10 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

(78) GLYCERIUS

(3/5 MARCH 473 – 24 JUNE 474 AD: 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 19/21 DAYS)

 

(79) OLYBRIUS

(APRIL – 2 NOVEMBER 472 AD: 7 MONTHS)

 

(80) LIBIUS SEVERUS

(19 NOVEMBER 461 AD – 14 NOVEMBER 465 AD: 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS 26 DAYS)

 

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.

I’ve lumped them all together, which might be a little unfair for Avitus and Anthemius, who at least tried to do something to stall the fall, effectively through alliances with the Visigoths and eastern empire respectively.

 

(81) BASILISCUS – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(9 JANUARY 475 AD – AUGUST 476 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS)

 

Botched the Battle of Cape Bon against the Vandals in north Africa – somehow survived the consequences of that to pull off a coup and reign as emperor briefly before the previous emperor struck back.

Shout-out to his son and co-emperor Marcus. You guessed it – only mentioned in parenthesis with his father in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors.

 

 

(82) CARINUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(283 AD – AUGUST / SEPTEMBER 285 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

The Crisis of the Third Century hadn’t stopped being terrible yet – personified by Carinus before he was defeated by Diocletian, a defeat brought about in part by sleeping with the wives of his officers.

 

(83) TREBONIANUS GALLUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JUNE 251 AD – AUGUST 253 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS)

 

The embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century

 

TOP 10 WORST EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(84) VOLUSIANUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(AUGUST 251 AD – AUGUST 253 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

As per Dovahhatty – “Now son, may we rule long and incompetently”.

Son of Trebonianus Gallus. Just as useless as his father but didn’t even achieve his uselessness on his own as he was appointed as co-emperor by his father, hence the ranking just below his father.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(85) GETA – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(4 FEBRUARY – 26 DECEMBER 2011 AD: 10 MONTHS AND 15/22 DAYS)

 

As bad as his older brother, just not as good at being bad – hence his brother assassinated him first.

 

(86) DIDIUS JULIANUS – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FIVE EMPERORS

28 MARCH – 1 JUNE 193 AD (2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

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

 

(87) VITELLIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FOUR EMPERORS

(19 APRIL – 20 DECEMBER 69 AD: 8 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

The third and worst of the Four Emperors. As per 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”.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(88) PRISCUS ATTALUS – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(409 AD – 410 AD: LESS THAN 1 YEAR)

 

Puppet of the Visigoth leader Alaric – the first western emperor to be raised to that office by a barbarian and a precursor of the last western emperors to come.

 

LEO II – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(18 JANUARY – NOVEMBER 474 AD: 10 MONTHS)

 

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

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

 

DIADUMENIAN – NON-DYNASTIC (SEVERAN DYNASTY)

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

 

Three ephemeral child emperors to whom I’m not giving a numbered ranking because, well, it seems unfair to rank them against their adult counterparts, particularly because they all died young – Diadumenian and Philip II were both killed along with their fathers and Leo II died of disease. Leo II is something of an exception to the rule of my dishonorable mentions as he was recognized as a legitimate emperor (heir to his grandfather Leo) but died within a few months.

On the subject of unranked child emperors, shout-out to Marcus, the son and co-emperor of his father Basiliscus (mentioned in parenthesis with his father in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors).

 

SILBANNACUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 253 AD?)

 

A mystery numismatic imperial claimant about whom nothing was written or is known except for two coins in his name, hence numismatic. He does appear in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors hence why I include him here but with an unnumbered ranking.

Shout-out to Sponsian – a similar mystery imperial claimant known only from coins but who is not included in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS

 

(89) PETRONIUS MAXIMUS –

NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 MARCH – 31 MAY 455 AD: 2 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

The nadir of the last western Roman emperors.

Duped his predecessor Valentinian III into assassinating Flavius Aetius, the supreme military commander holding the empire together and who had defended it against the Huns – then orchestrated the assassination of Valentian III.

Killed while attempting to flee the sack of Rome by the Vandals – something for which he was largely responsible by cancelling the betrothal of Valentinian’s daughter to the Vandal prince (and marrying her to his own son instead to shore up his legitimacy).

 

(90) ARCADIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(17 JANUARY 395 – 408 AD: 13 YEARS 3 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

He and his brother are why the Theodosian dynasty was the worst imperial dynasty and virtually synonymous with the fall of the Roman empire. Arcadius was much like his brother in the western empire, weak and useless, puppeted by subordinates but luckier in that the eastern empire was more robust.

 

(91) CONSTANTINE II – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 – APRIL 340 AD: 2 YEARS 7 MONTHS)

 

A whiny little toad, who tried to usurp his younger brother and got pawned instead.

 

(92) CARACALLA – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(4 FEBRUARY 211 – 217 AD: 6 YEARS 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry – the Incredible Hulk of the Roman Empire, not in superhuman strength but in violent temper, smashing his way from one end of the empire to another.

 

(93) COMMODUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY

(17 MARCH 180 – 192 AD: 12 YEARS 9 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

His accession was the exact moment Rome went from a kingdom of gold to a kingdom of iron and rust, according to contemporary historian Cassius Dio (and almost literally in the form of him debasing the currency)

I mean, you have seen the gospel according to Ridley Scott – Gladiator – haven’t you? Yes, it’s – ahem – not entirely accurate to history, but it does capture the essence of Commodus, even if that is turned all the way up to eleven (and combined with that of Caligula) in the film.

Essentially preferred role playing as Hercules or as a gladiator to imperial administration or military policy.

 

(94) VALENTINIAN III – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY

(23 OCTOBER 425 – 16 MARCH 455 AD: 29 YEARS 4 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

 

“Whether well or not, I do not know. But know that you have cut off your right hand with your left”.

Like his predecessor Honorius, he was a model of supine inactivity as the empire crumbled, except for betraying the loyal subordinate who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back. Literally in the case of Valentinian III with Aetius – well, perhaps not literally in the back, but literally stabbing Aetius, the only time he ever drew a sword, striking down the unarmed Aetius and with a pack to back him up no less.

One of the notorious sacks of Rome duly followed – by the Vandals, albeit via Petronius Maximus. Between Valentinian and Honorius with their inexplicably long reigns – of similar length of 30 years each – they broke the western Roman empire and presided over its fall.

 

(95) HONORIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 JANUARY 395 AD – 15 AUGUST 423 AD AD: 28 YEARS 6 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

Chicken boy.

Dovahhatty summed him up best – “Honorius continued on living as he always had, laying around, babbling like an idiot as the world around him fell apart, but for one exception. One day Honorius turned it all around and decided, for once, to do the best possible thing he could do for the empire and died, after ruling Rome for a godawful thirty years.”

Like Valentinian III with Aetius, Honorius betrayed the loyal subordinate Stilicho who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back – just not as literally as Valentinian III, having him executed instead.

But for Constantius III, effectively the successor of Stilicho, saving Honorius’ empire for him, the empire may well have crumbled and fallen as rapidly as it did after Valentinian III.

Oh – and that chicken boy reference? It comes from the story that Honorius initially reacted with alarm to being told that Rome had “perished” after its sack by the Visigoths – as he had thought it a reference to his favorite pet chicken he had named Roma and he was relieved to find out it was only in reference to the actual city. It’s probably apocryphal but just too true to his character and symbolic with respect to it involving a chicken that I accept it anyway.

 

(96) ELAGABALUS – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(16 MAY 218 AD – 13 MARCH 222 AD: 3 YEARS 9 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

Certainly one of the weirdest emperors, Elagabalus is what happens when you let an omnisexual teenager of dubious mental stability loose with absolute imperial power AND his own cult. It’s like Elagabalus read Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars with its lurid depictions of imperial depravity and said hold my beer – or his weird sun god cult (as opposed to Aurelian’s cool sun god cult).

 

(97) NERO – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(13 OCTOBER 54 AD – 9 JUNE 68 AD: 13 YEARS 7 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

What can I say? You just can’t argue with the Gospel of Suetonius. Or the Book of Apocalypse, with Nero literally as the Beast of the Apocalypse – or as I like to quip, that sixy beast, given that the Number of the Beast was alphanumeric code for Nero Caesar.

 

(98) CALIGULA – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(18 MARCH 37 AD – 24 JANUARY 41 AD: 3 YEARS 10 MONTHS 6 DAYS)

 

“Would that the Roman people had but one neck”

Ah – Caligula, dreaming of choking out all Rome, the archetype of legendary cruelty and depravity as well as that of the capricious and insane tyrant, so much so that there is a trope of the Caligula named for him (and we all know the type, depressingly frequent in history and culture).

As I said for Nero, what can I say? You can’t argue with the Gospel of Suetonius, or the Revelations of Bob Guccione in his 1979 Caligula film. Or with the Gospel of Robert Graves which follows Suetonius, or the Revelations of Judge Dredd with Caligula as its Chief Judge Cal in The Day the Law Died.

 

 

Top Tens – History (Rome): Complete Roman Emperor Rankings (Part 4: 89-98)

Posted on by

Collage of the first Roman emperor Augustus and the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus from Dovahatty- Unbiased History of Rome IX: Augustus and Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: Fall of Rome respectively

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS

 

(89) PETRONIUS MAXIMUS –

NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 MARCH – 31 MAY 455 AD: 2 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

The nadir of the last western Roman emperors.

Duped his predecessor Valentinian III into assassinating Flavius Aetius, the supreme military commander holding the empire together and who had defended it against the Huns – then orchestrated the assassination of Valentian III.

Killed while attempting to flee the sack of Rome by the Vandals – something for which he was largely responsible by cancelling the betrothal of Valentinian’s daughter to the Vandal prince (and marrying her to his own son instead to shore up his legitimacy).

 

(90) ARCADIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(17 JANUARY 395 – 408 AD: 13 YEARS 3 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

He and his brother are why the Theodosian dynasty was the worst imperial dynasty and virtually synonymous with the fall of the Roman empire. Arcadius was much like his brother in the western empire, weak and useless, puppeted by subordinates but luckier in that the eastern empire was more robust.

 

(91) CONSTANTINE II – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 – APRIL 340 AD: 2 YEARS 7 MONTHS)

 

A whiny little toad, who tried to usurp his younger brother and got pawned instead.

 

(92) CARACALLA – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(4 FEBRUARY 211 – 217 AD: 6 YEARS 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry – the Incredible Hulk of the Roman Empire, not in superhuman strength but in violent temper, smashing his way from one end of the empire to another.

 

(93) COMMODUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY

(17 MARCH 180 – 192 AD: 12 YEARS 9 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

 

His accession was the exact moment Rome went from a kingdom of gold to a kingdom of iron and rust, according to contemporary historian Cassius Dio (and almost literally in the form of him debasing the currency)

I mean, you have seen the gospel according to Ridley Scott – Gladiator – haven’t you? Yes, it’s – ahem – not entirely accurate to history, but it does capture the essence of Commodus, even if that is turned all the way up to eleven (and combined with that of Caligula) in the film.

Essentially preferred role playing as Hercules or as a gladiator to imperial administration or military policy.

 

(94) VALENTINIAN III – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY

(23 OCTOBER 425 – 16 MARCH 455 AD: 29 YEARS 4 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

 

“Whether well or not, I do not know. But know that you have cut off your right hand with your left”.

Like his predecessor Honorius, he was a model of supine inactivity as the empire crumbled, except for betraying the loyal subordinate who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back. Literally in the case of Valentinian III with Aetius – well, perhaps not literally in the back, but literally stabbing Aetius, the only time he ever drew a sword, striking down the unarmed Aetius and with a pack to back him up no less.

One of the notorious sacks of Rome duly followed – by the Vandals, albeit via Petronius Maximus. Between Valentinian and Honorius with their inexplicably long reigns – of similar length of 30 years each – they broke the western Roman empire and presided over its fall.

 

(95) HONORIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 JANUARY 395 AD – 15 AUGUST 423 AD AD: 28 YEARS 6 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

Chicken boy.

Dovahhatty summed him up best – “Honorius continued on living as he always had, laying around, babbling like an idiot as the world around him fell apart, but for one exception. One day Honorius turned it all around and decided, for once, to do the best possible thing he could do for the empire and died, after ruling Rome for a godawful thirty years.”

Like Valentinian III with Aetius, Honorius betrayed the loyal subordinate Stilicho who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back – just not as literally as Valentinian III, having him executed instead.

But for Constantius III, effectively the successor of Stilicho, saving Honorius’ empire for him, the empire may well have crumbled and fallen as rapidly as it did after Valentinian III.

Oh – and that chicken boy reference? It comes from the story that Honorius initially reacted with alarm to being told that Rome had “perished” after its sack by the Visigoths – as he had thought it a reference to his favorite pet chicken he had named Roma and he was relieved to find out it was only in reference to the actual city. It’s probably apocryphal but just too true to his character and symbolic with respect to it involving a chicken that I accept it anyway.

 

(96) ELAGABALUS – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(16 MAY 218 AD – 13 MARCH 222 AD: 3 YEARS 9 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

Certainly one of the weirdest emperors, Elagabalus is what happens when you let an omnisexual teenager of dubious mental stability loose with absolute imperial power AND his own cult. It’s like Elagabalus read Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars with its lurid depictions of imperial depravity and said hold my beer – or his weird sun god cult (as opposed to Aurelian’s cool sun god cult).

 

(97) NERO – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(13 OCTOBER 54 AD – 9 JUNE 68 AD: 13 YEARS 7 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

What can I say? You just can’t argue with the Gospel of Suetonius. Or the Book of Apocalypse, with Nero literally as the Beast of the Apocalypse – or as I like to quip, that sixy beast, given that the Number of the Beast was alphanumeric code for Nero Caesar.

 

(98) CALIGULA – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(18 MARCH 37 AD – 24 JANUARY 41 AD: 3 YEARS 10 MONTHS 6 DAYS)

 

“Would that the Roman people had but one neck”

Ah – Caligula, dreaming of choking out all Rome, the archetype of legendary cruelty and depravity as well as that of the capricious and insane tyrant, so much so that there is a trope of the Caligula named for him (and we all know the type, depressingly frequent in history and culture).

As I said for Nero, what can I say? You can’t argue with the Gospel of Suetonius, or the Revelations of Bob Guccione in his 1979 Caligula film. Or with the Gospel of Robert Graves which follows Suetonius, or the Revelations of Judge Dredd with Caligula as its Chief Judge Cal in The Day the Law Died.

 

Top Tens – History (Rome): Complete Roman Emperor Rankings (Part 3: 34-88)

Posted on by

Collage of the first Roman emperor Augustus and the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus from Dovahatty- Unbiased History of Rome IX: Augustus and Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: Fall of Rome respectively

 

AND NOW…THE BAD

 

Yeah – this was always going to be the biggest part, because let’s face it, most of the Roman emperors were bad. And that’s with saving the top ten worst emperors for the last part.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE…OR IS THAT MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS LINE SEPARATING BAD FROM GOOD EMPERORS?

 

Okay, okay, that might seem wrong, ranking Septimius Severus and Theodosius just over the line as ‘bad’ emperors, let alone ranking them below Pertinax and Maximinus Thrax or usurpers such as Eugenius and Johannes, when ranking them alongside Constantius II and Gallienus as good but flawed emperors might seem more accurate…but I just can’t forgive them their wretched dynasties. Also…

 

(34) SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(9 APRIL 193 AD – 4 FEBRUARY 211 AD: 17 YEARS 9 MONTHS 26 DAYS)

 

Yes, probably the best of the bad options in the Year of Five Emperors but as per Spectrum “he was the one who started debasing the currency like a madman in order to increase his soldiers’ pay. On one hand, keeping himself in power was the reason why. On the other, a lot of the problems the empire faced later down the line and possibly the reason it fell in the first place can be chalked up to him”.

 

 

(35) THEODOSIUS – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(19 JANUARY 379 AD – 17 JANUARY 395 AD: 15 YEARS 11 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

Theodosius the so-called Great. Founder of the worst dynasty of the classical Roman empire. Yes, again he probably did the best of bad options open to the empire after the Battle of Adrianople but was kicking the can down the road for the empire to pick up later – with the fall of the western empire. As per Dovahhatty, “I’m busy thinking how to be horrible at everything and yet still be remembered as ‘great'”

 

MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS LINE…OR IS THAT MY SEVERUS-THEODOSIUS II LINE SEPARATING BAD FROM GOOD EMPERORS?

 

Okay, okay – one might extend the line through Leo to Theodosius II as borderline ‘bad’ emperors. Again, it might seem wrong ranking either just over the line as bad emperors, let alone ranking them below Pertinax and Maximinus Thrax or Eugenius and Johannes – when again ranking them as alongside Constantius II and Gallienus as good but flawed emperors might seem more apt, but…

 

(36) LEO – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(7 FEBRUARY 457 – 18 JANUARY 474 AD: 16 YEARS 11 MONTHS 11 DAYS)

 

Yes – he did found the Leonid dynasty and hence earned the title of Leo the Great, a dynasty that was decent enough and saw the eastern empire outlast the western empire. Yes – he also overthrew the Gothic military clique under Aspar that dominated the eastern empire, hence earning the title of Leo the Butcher.

And yes – he also attempted to save the western empire as it fell, particularly with his naval expedition to reclaim north Africa from the Vandals but…for the disastrous defeat of that expedition at the Battle of Cape Bon, bankrupting his eastern empire and dooming the western one, even if that defeat was primarily the fault of the fleet’s commander (and Leo’s brother-in-law) Basiliscus. That had to cost him my ranking as good emperor.

 

(37) THEODOSIUS II – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(1 MAY 408 AD – 28 JULY 450 AD: 42 YEARS 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

Yes – I have more respect for the eastern empire in general and Theodosius II in particular after reading Peter Heather’s The Fall of the Roman Empire as neither was quite as supine towards the fall of the western empire as is usually perceived. And also after all, the reign of Theodosius did see the eastern empire avoid the same scale of disaster that befell its western counterpart.

But…his reign also saw the empire ravaged by the Huns effectively to the point of surrender by tribute to them – which also precluded a joint naval expedition with the western empire against the Vandals in north Africa to salvage the western empire. And it also saw one intervention too many in the western empire to reclaim it for Valentinian III, when it would have been better left to Johannes.

 

D-TIER (LOW TIER)

 

(38) GRATIAN – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(17 NOVEMBER 375 AD – 25 AUGUST 383 AD: 7 YEARS 9 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(39) CONSTANS – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN & EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 AD – JANUARY 350 AD: 12 YEARS 4 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors with uncannily similar reigns, despite being separated by forty years or so and successive dynasties – both succeeded great emperors and founders of dynasties (for whom the dynasties were named) as their sons, both began as child emperors in circumstances where others had designs on them as puppets, both were western emperors who were reasonably robust in defending the western empire, and both were usurped and killed when their legions deserted them due to them ‘favoring’ their barbarian soldiers in suggestive ways

 

(40) VALENS – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(364 AD – 378 AD: 14 YEARS 4 MONTHS 12 DAYS)

 

Gothicus Minimus, amirite?

I mean, his infamous defeat at the Battle of Adrianople has got to cost him in the rankings. However, it shouldn’t cost him disproportionately to a reasonably competent imperial administration, hence I don’t rank him in the bottom tier – and still ahead of most other emperors, although that is more a result of just how bad most Roman emperors were…

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(41) CONSTANTINE III – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(407-411 AD: 4 YEARS)

 

The usurper I rank as least bad, because it’s hard not to have a sneaking admiration for him – a common soldier in Roman Britain who rose to usurp Honorius to the point that the latter had to recognize him as co-emperor for a short period. Also because he rose to literal legendary status in Britain, even as high as being identified as the grandfather of King Arthur. He’d at least outrank Constantine II if ever I was to rank my Top 10 Constantines (note to self – rank my Top 10 Constantines, although that will have to await my Byzantine emperor rankings as most of the Constantines were eastern Roman emperors).

Shout-out to his son and co-emperor Constans – I simply place him here unranked because he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Constantine.

 

(42) MAGNUS MAXIMUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

(43) MAGNENTIUS – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

Two usurpers, similar to each other as they usurped similar emperors – Constans in the case of Magnentius and Gratian in the case of Magnus Maximus. The latter took his title as the best and greatest – he wasn’t either but he and Magnentius were not too bad as usurpers go, although I rank them both below the emperors they usurped (but not by much).

Shout-out to Victor as son and co-emperor of Maximus, suffering the same fate of defeat and execution as his father – I simply place him here unranked because he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Maximus.

 

(44) MAXENTIUS – USURPER: TETRARCHY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

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

Ironically, that sees him outrank all other members of the Tetrarchy other than Diocletian (who died before his accession), Constantius, and Constantine – which is probably more a comment on their bad quality. He out-maneuvered his own father Maximian, while also defeating Severus II and Galerius. It’s probably a little unfair to Licinius though, given that Licinius allied with Constantine to defeat him. Still, he had it coming by Constantine. Speaking of the Tetrarchy…

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

TETRARCHY –

 

(45) GALERIUS (EASTERN EMPIRE):

(1 MAY 305 AD – MAY 311 AD: 6 YEARS)

 

(46) MAXIMIAN (WESTERN EMPIRE):

(1 APRIL 286 AD – 1 MAY 305 AD: 19 YEARS 1 MONTH)

(NOVEMBER 306 AD – 11 NOVEMBER 308 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

(47) LICINIUS (WESTERN THEN EASTERN EMPIRE):

(11 NOVEMBER 308 AD – 19 SEPTEMBER 321 AD: 15 YEARS 10 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(48) MAXIMINUS II / MAXIMINUS “DAZA” (EASTERN EMPIRE):

(310 AD – JULY 313 AD: 3 YEARS)

 

(49) SEVERUS II (WESTERN EMPIRE):

(AUGUST 306 AD – MARCH / APRIL 307 AD: 8 MONTHS)

 

The Tetrarchy was a bit of a hot mess 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, with most of them ultimately proving to be only foils to Constantine in one form or another. That pretty much sums them up – screwing up without Diocletian until they were pawned by Constantine.

So I’ve lumped them all together in my rankings – perhaps somewhat unfairly for Galerius who might have ranked higher (perhaps as high as Valens or Gratian, although he was defeated by Maxentius), just about right for Maximian and Licinius (although perhaps Licinius might have ranked highest among these Tetrarchy emperors for political cunning and endurance), and pulling up Maximinus II and Severus II. (Severus might well have ranked down with the more F-tier Crisis emperors, with Maximinus not too far behind).

 

 

(50) DECIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 249 AD – JUNE 251 AD: 1 YEAR 8-9 MONTHS)

 

(51) PHILIP THE ARAB – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(FEBRUARY 244 AD – SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 249 AD: 5 YEARS 7-8 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors in succession presiding over almost eight years of the Crisis that were just a cut above the worst emperors of the Crisis.

And it was a close call between them – Philip had the longer reign but I just like Decius more, what with his exhortation to his troops after his son was killed in battle (and before his own death in that battle): “Let no one mourn, the death of one soldier is no great loss to the Republic”.

 

(52) SEVERUS ALEXANDER – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(14 MARCH 222 AD – MARCH 235 AD: 13 YEARS 8 DAYS)

 

(53) GORDIAN III – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(AUGUST 238 AD – FEBRUARY 244 AD: 5 YEARS 6 MONTHS)

 

And now we come to two similar emperors, both effectively commencing as child emperors – indeed the first and second youngest sole emperors of the whole empire respectively – puppeted by their mothers. Gordian was the weaker of the two – Severus Alexander may well have become more effective but for the military coup that overthrew and killed him, kicking off the Crisis of the Third Century. As per Spectrum, “he could have turned out into a good emperor but unfortunately his mother took too long to die”.

 

 

(54) JOVIAN – NON-DYNASTIC (CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY)

(27 JUNE 363 AD – 17 FEBRUARY 364 AD: 7 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

 

Jovian really is in a category of his own, whose brief reign was seen as a bit of a joke. It wasn’t really his fault – all he did was have defeat handed to him from his predecessor and then die, but he probably did the best anyone could in those circumstances.

 

 

(55) MACRINUS – NON-DYNASTIC (SEVERAN DYNASTY)

(11 APRIL 217 AD – 8 JUNE 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.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(56) PROCOPIUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

Procopius gave it a damn good shot usurping the eastern emperor Valens, in the capital Constantinople no less, such that Valens almost gave up in despair. Almost gave up, that is, but not quite – with Valens pulling through to win and execute Procopius.

 

(57) NEPOTIANUS – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(3-30 JUNE 350 AD: 27 DAYS)

 

Counter-usurper to Magnentius in Rome – ranks better than the brevity of a reign of only 27 days might suggest – for doing it by literal gladiatorial coup. I have to admire his sheer ballsiness in that he didn’t even have any soldiers for his attempt, but instead entered Rome with a band of gladiators. Gladiators! And pulled it off enough that Rome’s prefect and loyal supporter of Magnentius had to flee the city. This is what the Gladiator sequel film should have featured!

 

(58) MARTINIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

(JULY – 19 SEPTEMBER 324 AD: 2 MONTHS)

 

(59) VALERIUS VALENS – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

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

 

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

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

 

(60) SALONINUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(260 AD: 1 MONTH)

 

Saloninus was briefly co-emperor as son of the reigning emperor Gallienus. Gallienus had sent him to Gaul, not as co-emperor but as caesar – only to be declared emperor by his troops in a short-lived effort to stave off revolt before handing him over anyway

 

(61) HERENNIUS ETRUSCUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

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

 

(62) HOSTILIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JUNE-JULY 251 AD: 1 MONTH)

 

Co-emperors as sons of the emperor Decius.

Hostilian was the surviving son of Decius, whom Decius’ successor Trebonianus Gallus proclaimed as his co-emperor to lend some legitimacy and continuity to his reign, only for Hostilian to die of disease shortly afterwards.

Herennius died in battle – the same Battle of Arbritus against the Goths in which his father Decius was defeated and killed.

 

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(63) GALBA – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FOUR EMPERORS

(8 JUNE 68 AD – 15 JANUARY 69 AD: 7 MONTHS 7 DAYS)

 

(64) OTHO – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FOUR EMPERORS

(15 JANUARY – 16 APRIL 69 AD: 3 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

The two emperors who kicked off the Year of Four Emperors. Of Galba, Tacitus said “that all would have agreed he was equal to the imperial office if he had never held it”, while 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.

And Otho? Well, he was worse – Nero-level worse.

 

CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY EMPERORS –

 

(65) NUMERIAN:

(JULY / AUGUST 283 AD – NOVEMBER 284 AD: 1 YEAR 3-4 MONTHS)

 

(66) AEMILIANUS:

(JULY – SEPTEMBER 253 AD: 88 DAYS?)

 

(67) FLORIANUS:

(JUNE – SEPTEMBER 276 AD: 80-88 DAYS)

 

(68) QUINTILLUS:

(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 270 AD: 17-77 DAYS?)

 

(69) GORDIAN II:

(APRIL-MAY 238 AD: 22 DAYS)

 

(70) GORDIAN:

(APRIL-MAY 238 AD: 22 DAYS)

 

(71) PUPIENUS:

(MAY-AUGUST 238 AD: 99 DAYS)

 

(72) BALBINUS:

(MAY-AUGUST 238 AD: 99 DAYS)

 

The archetypal weak emperors 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.

Balbinus and Pupienus were co-emperors, as were Gordian and his son Gordian II – all hawked up and spat out by the Year of Six Emperors. Quintillus may have been emperor as little as 17 days – and also was up against Aurelian. Florianus and Amelianus were defeated by better rivals. Numerian was a little like Jovian, except with the Praetorian Guard playing weekend at Bernie’s with his corpse.

 

(73) VALENTINIAN II – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(28 AUGUST 388 AD – 15 MAY 392 AD: 3 YEARS 8 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

 

Precursor of the weak puppet last western emperors. Speaking of which…

 

LAST WESTERN EMPERORS –

 

(74) ANTHEMIUS

(12 APRL 467- 11 JULY 472 AD: 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

 

(75) AVITUS

(9 JULY 455 AD – 17 OCTOBER 456 AD: 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

 

(76) JULIUS NEPOS

(24 JUNE 474 AD – 28 AUGUST 475 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

(77) ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS

(31 OCTOBER 475 AD – 24 JUNE 476 AD: 10 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

(78) GLYCERIUS

(3/5 MARCH 473 – 24 JUNE 474 AD: 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS 19/21 DAYS)

 

(79) OLYBRIUS

(APRIL – 2 NOVEMBER 472 AD: 7 MONTHS)

 

(80) LIBIUS SEVERUS

(19 NOVEMBER 461 AD – 14 NOVEMBER 465 AD: 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS 26 DAYS)

 

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.

I’ve lumped them all together, which might be a little unfair for Avitus and Anthemius, who at least tried to do something to stall the fall, effectively through alliances with the Visigoths and eastern empire respectively.

 

(81) BASILISCUS – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(9 JANUARY 475 AD – AUGUST 476 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS)

 

Botched the Battle of Cape Bon against the Vandals in north Africa – somehow survived the consequences of that to pull off a coup and reign as emperor briefly before the previous emperor struck back.

Shout-out to his son and co-emperor Marcus. You guessed it – mentioned only in parenthesis with his father in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors.

 

(82) CARINUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(283 AD – AUGUST / SEPTEMBER 285 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

The Crisis of the Third Century hadn’t stopped being terrible yet – personified by Carinus before he was defeated by Diocletian, a defeat brought about in part by sleeping with the wives of his officers.

 

(83) TREBONIANUS GALLUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(JUNE 251 AD – AUGUST 253 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS)

 

The embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century

 

TOP 10 WORST EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(84) VOLUSIANUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(AUGUST 251 AD – AUGUST 253 AD: 2 YEARS)

 

As per Dovahhatty – “Now son, may we rule long and incompetently”.

Son of Trebonianus Gallus. Just as useless as his father but didn’t even achieve his uselessness on his own as he was appointed as co-emperor by his father, hence the ranking just below his father.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(85) GETA – SEVERAN DYNASTY

(4 FEBRUARY – 26 DECEMBER 2011 AD: 10 MONTHS AND 15/22 DAYS)

 

As bad as his older brother, just not as good at being bad – hence his brother assassinated him first.

 

(86) DIDIUS JULIANUS – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FIVE EMPERORS

28 MARCH – 1 JUNE 193 AD (2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

 

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

 

(87) VITELLIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FOUR EMPERORS

(19 APRIL – 20 DECEMBER 69 AD: 8 MONTHS 1 DAY)

 

The third and worst of the Four Emperors. As per 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”.

 

TOP 10 WORST ROMAN EMPERORS (DISHONORABLE MENTION)

 

(88) PRISCUS ATTALUS – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

409 AD – 410 AD: LESS THAN 1 YEAR)

 

Puppet of the Visigoth leader Alaric – the first western emperor to be raised to that office by a barbarian and a precursor of the last western emperors to come.

 

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

LEO II – LEONID DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(18 JANUARY – NOVEMBER 474 AD: 10 MONTHS)

 

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

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

 

DIADUMENIAN – NON-DYNASTIC (SEVERAN DYNASTY)

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

 

Three ephemeral child emperors to whom I’m not giving a numbered ranking because, well, it seems unfair to rank them against their adult counterparts, particularly because they all died young – Diadumenian and Philip II were both killed along with their fathers and Leo II died of disease. Leo II is something of an exception to the rule of my dishonorable mentions as he was recognized as a legitimate emperor (heir to his grandfather Leo) but died within a few months.

 

SILBANNACUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 253 AD?)

 

A mystery numismatic imperial claimant about whom nothing was written or is known except for two coins in his name, hence numismatic. He does appear in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors hence why I include him here but with an unnumbered ranking.

Shout-out to Sponsian – a similar mystery imperial claimant known only from coins but who is not included in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors.

Top Tens – History (Rome): Complete Roman Emperor Rankings (Part 2: 11-33)

Posted on by

Collage of the first Roman emperor Augustus and the last western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus from Dovahatty- Unbiased History of Rome IX: Augustus and Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: Fall of Rome respectively

 

TOP 10 BEST ROMAN EMPERORS (SPECIAL MENTION)

 

(11) VESPASIAN – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(1 JULY 69 – 23 JUNE 79 AD: 9 YEARS 11 MONTHS 22 DAYS)

 

Founder of the Flavian dynasty and restorer of the Pax Romana from the civil war of succession in the first century.

 

(12) CLADIUS – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(24 JANUARY 41 AD – 13 OCTOBER 54 AD: 13 YEARS 8 MONTHS 19 DAYS)

 

“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”.

Turned the empire around after inheriting it from its worst emperor – an able and efficient administrator, above all restoring the empire’s finances.

 

(13) DOMITIAN – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(14 SEPTEMBER 81 AD – 18 SEPTEMBER 96 AD: 15 YEARS 4 DAYS)

 

Modern historians have increasingly seen Domitian’s reign as laying the foundation of the golden age that immediately succeeded him (or at least did via a brief interregnum via Nerva). His reign was distinctive or even unique for its economic success, above all in revaluing the currency. Whether or not as per Spectrum he “was the only emperor to have actually fixed the problem of inflation, the only one”, he certainly “maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve”.

 

(14) TIBERIUS – JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(17 SEPTEMBER 14 – 16 MARCH 37 AD: 22 YEARS 5 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

 

Successor to Augustus – consolidated the empire and left the imperial treasury in huge surplus.

 

(15) ANTONINUS PIUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(10 JULY 138 AD – 7 MARCH 161 AD: 22 YEARS 7 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

 

My man Tony Pius, the man who maxed the pax of the Pax Romana – “His reign was the most peaceful in the entire history of the Principate” – which I would hazard to guess makes it the most peaceful in the entire history of the classical empire, given how much less peaceful the Dominate was.

 

(16) MARCIAN – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(25 AUGUST 450 AD – 27 JANUARY 457 AD: 6 YEARS 5 MONTHS 2 DAYS)

 

Sadly overlooked and underrated among Roman emperors – except among sources from the eastern Roman empire, with his reign often looked back on as a golden age and the people of Constantinople shouting “Reign like Marcian!” at the accession of subsequent emperors.

Took on the Huns in their own heartland – “Marcian secured the Eastern Empire both politically and financially”, and left the treasury with a surplus, reversing its near bankruptcy in which it had been when he acceded to the throne.

 

(17) CONSTANTIUS III – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(8 FEBRUARY – 2 SEPTEMBER 421 AD: 6 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

 

An emperor who should be ranked highly for his achievement in stabilizing the fifth century western empire, an achievement that would have been more enduring but for his short reign, truncated by illness.

 

 

(18) CLAUDIUS II / CLAUDIUS GOTHICUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER 268 AD – AUGUST 270 AD: 1 YEAR 11 MONTHS)

 

The first of the so-called Illyrian emperors who renewed and led the Roman empire – turned the tide on the Crisis of the Third Century, laying the foundations for Aurelian and Probus to restore the empire, particularly by the victory of his title against the Goths, “one of the greatest in the history of Roman arms”.

 

 

(19) CONSTANTIUS – NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY: WESTERN EMPIRE

(1 MAY 305 AD – 25 JULY 306 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

 

Constantius might well have ranked higher but for his short reign as augustus or senior emperor in the West – the capstone of achievements as junior emperor or caesar for over 12 years from 293 AD, defeating the Carausian Revolt and Germanic tribes at the Rhine.

 

 

(20) TITUS – FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(24 JUNE 79 AD – 13 SEPTEMBER 81 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS 20 DAYS)

 

Built on the achievements of his father Vespasian – literally building in the case of completing the Colosseum, the achievement for which he is best known as emperor, and figuratively, coinciding with his most outstanding achievement being prior to his imperial accession, winning decisive victory in the First Jewish War.

 

And yes – I’ve shuffled those special mention entries from my original ranking, notably upgrading Constantius II after reading Peter Heather’s The Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

And now we come to some special mention matched pairings, in which one emperor is similar to or echoed by another emperor in the Crisis of the Third Century – also while good, drop down a tier from top-tier to high-tier, often coinciding with a mixed or even negative reputation.

 

(21) CONSTANTIUS II – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(9 SEPTEMBER 337 AD – 3 NOVEMBER 361 AD: 24 YEARS 1 MONTH 25 DAYS)

 

(22) GALLIENUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY:

WESTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE

(SEPTEMBER 253 AD – SEPTEMBER 268 AD: 15 YEARS)

 

Two beleagured emperors who holding the line of the empire during their reigns.

Constantius II has a mixed reputation but deserves his place among the good emperors for holding the empire together for almost two and a half decades – despite his brothers fighting each other, usurpers, civil war, and Germanic barbarian tribes, all while waging war with the Persian Sassanid empire for most of his reign.

Gallienus was the Crisis counterpart of Constantius II – holding the line as the empire faced “disease rampant, endless barbarian invasions, entire provinces seceding, and God knows how many usurpers”.

 

 

(23) LUCIUS VERUS – NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(7 MARCH 161 AD – JANUARY / FEBRUARY 169 AD: 7 YEARS 11 MONTHS)

 

(24) CARUS – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(SEPTEMBER 282 AD – JULY / AUGUST 283 AD: 10 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors who won impressive victories against the successive Persian empires, Parthians and Sassanids.

Lucius Verus – 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. “Meditate this, Marcus!” Led the Romans to victories over the Parthians, regaining control in Armenia and territory in Mesopotamia as well as sacking the Parthian royal city of Ctesiphon.

Carus – Crisis of the Third Century counterpart mirroring Lucius Verus, arguably outdoing 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, again sacking the Persian royal city of Ctesiphon.

 

(25) JULIAN – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY

(3 NOVEMBER 361 AD – 26 JUNE 363 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

 

(26) VALERIAN – NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY: EASTERN EMPIRE

(SEPTEMBER 253 AD – JUNE 260 AD: 6 YEARS 9 MONTHS)

 

Two emperors with impressive achievements, particularly in the military field prior to their accession, but undone by defeat against the Persians.

Julian – “Thou has conquered, Galilean”. The Apostate or the Philosopher, reflecting his attempted revival of classical paganism.

Valerian – 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.

 

(27) NERVA – NERVA-ANTONINE / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(18 SEPTEMBER 96 AD – 27 JANUARY 98 AD: 1 YEAR 4 MONTHS 9 DAYS)

 

(28) TACITUS –

NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(DECEMBER 275 AD – JUNE 276 AD: 7 MONTHS)

 

Nerva – the first (and least) of the Five Good Emperors. 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.

Tacitus – no, not the historian that everyone knows when they hear the name, but Crisis counterpart of Nerva. Both were essentially (elderly) senatorial caretaker or placeholder emperors, enabling the stable succession of imperial authority from an assassinated predecessor.

 

C-TIER (MID-TIER)

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE SEPARATING GOOD FROM BAD EMPERORS

 

(29) PERTINAX – NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FIVE EMPERORS

(1 JANUARY – 28 MARCH 193 AD: 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

 

(30) MAXIMINUS THRAX –

NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(MARCH 235 AD – JUNE 238 AD: 3 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

 

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.

Maximinus Thrax – archetypal barracks emperor, who secured the German frontier of the empire, at least for a while.

 

TOP 10 BEST ROMAN EMPERORS (HONORABLE MENTION)

 

ULPIA SEVERINA – FIRST AND LAST EMPRESS OF THE CLASSICAL ROMAN EMPIRE

(275 AD: 5-11 WEEKS – 6 MONTHS?)

 

I’m not giving her a numbered ranking since her ‘reign’ as widow of Aurelian really boils down to a few coins minted in her name (and she does not appear in the Wikipedia list of Roman emperors accordingly).

However, I’ll just leave her here as I like the romantic speculation of her as first and last empress of the classical Roman Empire.

 

 

(31) VETRANIO – USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(1 MARCH – 25 DECEMBER 350 AD: 9 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

 

One of three good usurpers of the classical Roman empire – counter-usurper against another usurper (Magnentius), abandoning his claim when meeting Constantius II and earning himself peaceful retirement

 

MY PERTINAX-THRAX LINE…OR IS THAT MY EUGENIUS-JOHANNES LINE SEPARATING GOOD USURPERS FROM BAD EMPERORS?

 

(32) EUGENIUS – USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(22 AUGUST 392 AD – 6 SEPTEMBER 394 AD: 2 YEARS 15 DAYS)

 

One of the great what-ifs of the late Roman empire – that the western empire would have fared better or at least stalled its fall longer if he and military commander Arbogast had won the Battle of the Frigidus in 394 AD. Or even better, if they had not fought it at all, with the eastern emperor Theodosius recognizing Eugenius as western emperor instead. At very least, the western empire would have been spared Honorius.

 

 

(33) JOHANNES – USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(20 NOVEMBER 423 AD – MAY 425 AD: 1 YEAR 6 MONTHS)

 

If Eugenius would have spared the western empire Honorius, Johannes would have spared it Valentinian III.