Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Pax Romana XI

(7) TITUS –
FLAVIAN DYNASTY
(79 – 81 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS 20 DAYS)

And we come now to special mentions for emperors that, while good, might well have ranked higher but for the brevity of their reign – also typically in combination with their most outstanding achievements actually being prior to their accession to emperor as the capstone of those achievements.

Titus is perhaps the classic example of an emperor who might well have ranked in the top ten but for his brief reign, although in his case his accession to the throne was as the first emperor to come to the throne after his own biological father, Vespasian, putting the dynasty into the Flavian dynasty.

He did build on the achievements of Vespasian – literally building in the case of completing the Colosseum, the achievement for which he is best known as emperor.

Also figuratively, coinciding with his most outstanding achievement being prior to his imperial accession – winning renown as a military commander by finishing Vespasian’s campaign in the First Jewish War through to decisive victory (after Vespasian had left to pursue his own imperial claim in the Year of the Four Emperors).

Titus besieged and captured Jerusalem, ending the Jewish rebellion, for which he received a triumph (with his father and brother) commemorated by the famous Arch of Titus still standing today. Not to mention all the spoils of war in gold and silver from the sacked and destroyed Temple in Jerusalem.

Interestingly, he gained notoriety during the reign of his father while serving as prefect of the Praetorian Guard and for his relationship with the Jewish queen Berenice, more booty from the war (heh). However, he ruled to great acclaim from contemporaries – not least, like his father before him (and unlike his younger brother Domitian after him), from the Senate, no doubt aided by him, ah, not killing any Senators during his reign, with one of his first imperial acts calling an end to trials (and executions) for treason.

He also responded generously to two natural disasters during his reign – the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and another great fire in Rome. His reign also saw yet another rebellion by a Nero claimant pop up and be put down – man, that guy really was the Antichrist, constantly bubbling up in different forms.

He died from fever or illness and was succeeded by his brother Domitian.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yes – the Flavian dynasty as one of the two chad dynasties (with the other as the five chad emperors).

RANKING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

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

(6) MARCIAN –
THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)
(450-457 AD: 6 YEARS 5 MONTHS 2 DAYS)

Sadly overlooked and underrated among Roman emperors – even Dovahhatty’s Unbiased History of Rome portrays him essentially as a model of supine inactivity, not much more than a visual pun on his name depicting him as the cartoon Marvin the Martian (from Looney Tunes).

That is, overlooked and underrated except among sources from the eastern Roman empire, who apparently even compared him to their founding figure Constantine – 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.

I was surprised looking him up to find this hidden gem of an emperor and to be fair, the eastern Roman empire sources call it pretty well – on the threshold of arguably swapping him into the top ten. You could (and I will) even argue for Marcian as an empire saver – that he was not only a large part of why the eastern empire endured, but the western empire as well, albeit the latter only from the more immediate threat of the Huns as it was doomed in the longer term.

Part of the surprise was that such an emperor could be found in that worst of imperial dynasties (prior to 476 at least), the Theodosian dynasty, but of course the answer is that, like another emperor we’ll come to shortly, he married into it – marrying Pulcheria, the sister of his predecessor Theodosius II. He didn’t consummate the marriage as she maintained her vow of virginity she had made in her youth – it was purely an arranged marriage for dynastic legitimacy.

That leads on to the next part of the surprise – that his accession to the throne was in very inauspicious circumstances to expect a good emperor. In a nutshell, he was effectively intended as a pawn by the real power behind the throne in the eastern Roman empire, its Germanic supreme military commander Aspar. Indeed, you could argue for Aspar playing a similar role to Ricimer and the other Germanic military leaders who controlled the western empire at the same time, except the eastern empire was robust enough to fight back and end the Germanic domination of their empire (albeit under Marcian’s successor).

Theodosius II – who was a model of supine inactivity, largely sleepwalking as emperor of the eastern empire as the western empire crumbled – had no sons nor had designated a successor, so the eastern empire faced its first succession crisis in sixty years. Aspar arranged Marcian’s accession to the throne and marriage to Pulcheria to seal the deal, Marcian serving and having served as domesticus or personal assistant to Aspar and Aspar’s father in the army. Marcian was also on the eve of his sixties, indeed mostly reigning in his sixties (hence perhaps why he didn’t rock the boat on Pulcheria’s vow of virginity).

Fortunately, there seem to have been other influences at play on Marcian as well as Aspar – Flavius Zeno and the strongminded Pucheria herself, as well as other advisors. Also, the interests of Aspar and his Germanic faction aligned with that of the eastern empire when it came to opposing the empire’s two greatest threats, the Huns and the Sassanid Persians.

Whatever the case, Marcian shook off the empire’s supine inactivity under his predecessor Theodosius II. In a ballsy move, he almost immediately revoked all treaties with Attila, ending the payment of ever increasing amounts of gold in tribute at Attila as Theodosius II had done. In an even ballsier move, he launched an expedition across the Danube, defeating the Huns in the very heartland (and breadbasket) of their empire in the Great Hungarian Plain, while Attila was raiding the western empire in Italy.

Although Attila’s ultimate motives remain unknown and there were other factors at play (notably famine and plague in Italy), these eastern Roman actions probably played a decisive role in the western empire and its envoy to Attila, Pope Leo I, persuading (or paying) Attila to withdraw from Italy.

It was a calculated gamble by Marcian and Aspar. Of course, their actions risked the renewed wrath of Attila – “after returning to the Great Hungarian Plain, he threatened to invade the Eastern Empire the following spring and conquer it entirely”. They ignored his threats – reasoning that “he could not be permanently deterred even by tons of gold” and the gold was better spent on building up their military strength rather than appeasing threats. Also, they reasoned that “the rich Asian and African provinces, which were protected behind Constantinople, were secure enough to allow the Eastern Empire to retake any European provinces it might lose”.

As it turned out, Marcian got lucky, with Attila dying in 453 and the Hunnic empire rapidly falling apart after his death. Marcian also got lucky in general – “some later scholars attribute his success not just to his skill, but also to a large degree of luck. Not only had he been fortunate enough to have Pulcheria to legitimize his rule, but for much of it the two greatest external threats to Rome, the Sassanian Empire and the Huns, were absorbed with their own internal problems. Further, no natural disasters or plagues occurred during his reign”. But then, the Romans saw luck or divine fortune as one of the marks of a good emperor, with the Senate invoking the fortune of Augustus for new emperors – “May you be luckier than Augustus and greater than Trajan”.

“Marcian secured the Eastern Empire both politically and financially, set an orthodox religious line that future emperors would follow, and stabilized the capital city politically”. He took advantage of the fragmentation of the Hunnic empire or confederation to settle Germanic tribes, notably the Ostrogoths, within the empire as foederati, and play barbarian tribes off against each other – imperial policies with mixed results to be sure but which that Marcian did successfully, with beneficial results for the eastern empire. Beyond that, he had a relatively peaceful reign, although he did win some minor campaigns against Saracens in Syria and Blemmyes in Egypt.

Even better, on his death he left the treasury with a surplus, reversing its near bankruptcy in which it had been when he acceded to the throne – in large part by cutting expenditure, notably those exorbitant tributes (and avoiding large-scale wars).

He didn’t do much to reverse the decline of the western Roman empire – other than of course having effectively saved it from the Huns during Attila’s invasion of Italy – but there was little he could do for that basketcase. He didn’t initially take action against the Vandals after their sack of Rome, but did secure release of the female imperial hostages taken by them and was planning an invasion of Vandal territory shortly before his death. It is a pity that his reign did not overlap with that of Majorian – it is tempting to imagine what a team-up between them could have achieved, particularly against the Vandals.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

As I opened, sadly an example where Dovahhatty did not do right.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE-SAVER

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

(5) ANTONINUS PIUS –
NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS
(138 – 161 AD: 22 YEARS 7 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

My man Tony Pius, the man who maxed the pax of the Pax Romana – another emperor who could arguably be swapped into the top ten emperors (and more than earned his place among the Five Good Emperors), except perhaps for not really doing much.

In the words of Spectrum, “this guy played the game in easy mode”. Trajan and Hadrian having left him an empire humming along at its peak – “All he had to do was not fck up, and well, he didn’t fck up”.

Dovahhatty had a more generous assessment – “He did absolutely nothing for twenty-three years. Based”. Partly because Dovahhatty then goes on to list achievements or perhaps more precisely events during his reign, including the conquest in Scotland early in his reign to a wall that bore his name, the Antonine Wall.

Personally, I think both understate the achievement of maintaining the empire at peace for over two decades – or indeed, not screwing up, which after all seemed too high a bar for most emperors.

“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. If it is to be characterized as inactivity, then it is inactivity from peace and good management requiring no action on his part, as opposed to the more disastrous supine inactivity from cowardice or incompetence we see from bad emperors – looking at you, Theodosian dynasty.

One might compare him to Hadrian with a focus on consolidating the empire, but in another way he was also the anti-Hadrian – whereas Hadrian travelled extensively throughout the empire, Antoninus never left Italy once during his reign. One modern scholar has written “It is almost certain not only that at no time in his life did he ever see, let alone command, a Roman army, but that, throughout the twenty-three years of his reign, he never went within five hundred miles of a legion”.

I tend to agree with scholars (such as Krzysztof Ulanowski) that this reflects his preference for – and achievements in – diplomacy, particularly “being successful in deterrence by diplomatic means”. Antoninus apparently stood off a resurgent Parthian Empire (under Vologasius IV) by writing a letter warning that “encroachment on Roman territory would not be taken lightly” – and that’s all it took for the Parthians to slink away with their tail between their legs.

The reign of Antoninus also saw the influence of the Roman Empire extend to its furthest extent beyond its borders (apart from spooking the Parthians) – he “was the last Roman Emperor recognised by the Indian Kingdoms, especially the Kushan Empire” and a group proclaiming themselves to be an “ambassadorial mission” made the first direct contact between Han China and the Roman Empire.

Otherwise, he was an effective administrator and left behind a treasury in substantial surplus (despite extensive building projects), something no other emperor would do for a long time.

Based, indeed.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

One of the five chad emperors – that quote really sums it up. Based.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(4) DOMITIAN –

FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(81 – 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, maintaining it through his reign by financial prudence and “rigorous taxation policy”. In his ranking of emperors, Youtuber Spectrum asserts that Domitian “was the only emperor to have actually fixed the problem of inflation, the only one”. I’m not sure that he was as unique in that respect as Spectrum asserts but at very least it was exceedingly rare (literally only one or two others) and he certainly “maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve”.

However, it was more than just the economy that he strengthened, although his economic management might be said to be representative of his prudent management of the empire and its administration as a whole.

“His foreign policy was realistic, rejecting expansionist warfare and negotiating peace” and “the military campaigns undertaken during Domitian’s reign were generally defensive in nature”. His military campaigns might not have been as conclusive or as overwhelmingly victorious as his critics would have preferred – notably against the Dacians, where Trajan finished the job – but he did leave the empire’s borders more secure, with his “most significant military contribution” as the development of the Limes Germanicus to defend the empire along the Rhine.

And his campaigns were, more or less, successful – extending the conquest of Britain into Scotland under his capable general Agricola, wars against the Germanic tribe of the Chatti (conferring upon himself the victory title of Germanicus Maximus), wars against the Dacians and other tribes across the Danube, and suppressing the revolt of governor Saturnius in Germania.

“Domitian is also credited on the easternmost evidence of Roman military presence, the rock inscription near Boyukdash mountain, in present-day Azerbaijan”. The Roman Empire may also have reached its northernmost and westernmost points during his reign – in Scotland (in the campaign by Agricola) and in Ireland (in a possible expedition, also by Agricola).

Otherwise, he was one of the Roman emperors with the largest architectural footprints in Rome with his extensive reconstruction of the city still damaged from disasters preceding his reign – and even the critical Suetonius observed “the imperial bureaucracy never ran more efficiently than under Domitian” with “historically low corruption”. Persecution of religious minorities such as Jews or Christians was minimal, if any, at least as observed by contemporaries although some was subsequently reputed to him.

Yet for all that, in a similar vein to the negative portrayals of Tiberius only even more so, Domitian is often seen as a bad emperor or even one of the worst, echoing senatorial hostility toward him as a ‘cruel tyrant’ through the ages.

So where does the hate for Domitian come from, often expressed in terms of ranking him as one of Rome’s worst and most tyrannical emperors? Why, from the Senate of course, reflecting the mutual antagonism between Domitian and the Senate, hence the latter’s official damnatio memoriae on Domitian after his death by assassination in a conspiracy by court officials.

The Senate hated him and he hated them right back, as he had been in Rome during the Year of the Four Emperors (while his father and brother were campaigning in Judaea) and seen the Senate kowtow to one imperial claimant after another (until his father won the throne as the fourth emperor). There’s an amusing story told of Domitian inviting the foremost senators to a banquet with such a theme of death for his guests – including gravestones in their names – that they feared execution – only to show himself to be trolling them, sending them all home at the end of the banquet.

Of course, that becomes a problem when it’s the senatorial class that wrote the histories.

Fortunately, modern historians have revised or reassessed Domitian as an emperor “whose administration provided the foundation for the Principate of the peaceful 2nd century”, with the policies of his immediate successors differing little from his in reality.

However, while one doesn’t have to agree with the senatorial hostility towards Domitian (and its viewpoint of him as a ‘bad’ emperor), one does have to recognize it, hence his ranking as special mention rather than in the top ten (as Spectrum does – in fifth place no less, over Marcus Aurelius in sixth place, because money trumps philosophy).

Like it or not, dealing with the Senate and senatorial class was a fact of political life in Rome, at least the Rome of the principate – and hence managing relations with the Senate was an important part of being emperor. The diplomacy and tact of Augustus towards the Senate is part of what made him so acclaimed, not least by the Senate who loved him for it – as they did Domitian’s father Vespasian and even more so his brother Titus. The mutual antagonism and hostility between the Senate and Domitian ultimately saw him assassinated for it, which might well have seen the empire in another civil war for imperial succession but for Nerva.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

The last of the chads of the Flavian dynasty, filled with anger towards the Senate.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Literally with respect to the currency

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(3) VESPASIAN –
FLAVIAN DYNASTY
(69 – 79 AD: 9 YEARS 11 MONTHS 22 DAYS)

Founder of the Flavian dynasty (of himself and his two sons), restorer of the Pax Romana, divine pharaoh – and possibly…the Messiah? Well perhaps not that last one – to paraphase Monty Python’s Life of Brian, he wasn’t the Messiah, just a good emperor.

Vespasian did after all found a dynasty, having to advance his imperial claim in a civil war of succession. Like it or not, dealing with the Senate and senatorial class was a fact of political life in Rome, at least the Rome of the principate – and hence managing relations with the Senate was an important part of being emperor. The diplomacy and tact of Augustus towards the Senate is part of what made him so acclaimed, not least by the Senate who loved him for it – as they did Vespasian and his son Titus (as opposed to mutual antagonism with his other son Domitian).

Vespasian restored the Pax Romana and political stability to the empire after the civil war of the Year of the Four Emperors (of which he was the fourth), as well as fiscal stability to an empire left desperately in debt by the depradations of Nero and Vitellius (albeit with some slight debasement of the currency).

“His fiscal reforms and consolidation of the empire generated political stability and a vast Roman building program.” The latter included that most famous of Roman landmarks, the Colosseum.

Vespasian had a distinguished military career in Britain and, most famously, leading the campaign (and besieging Jerusalem) against the Jewish Revolt, in the First Jewish-Roman War.

He left the latter for his son Titus to achieve victory while he advanced his imperial claim in the civil war of succession after the death of Nero, seizing Egypt and its critical grain supply to Rome. In Egypt, he was hailed as literally divine pharaoh (son of the creator god Amun or Zeus-Ammon, and incarnation of Serapis) amidst claims of miracles and visions – doubling down on literally messianic prophecies.

“According to Suetonius, a prophecy ubiquitous in the Eastern provinces claimed that from Judaea would come the future rulers of the world. Vespasian eventually believed that this prophecy applied to him, and found a number of omens and oracles that reinforced this belief.”

“Josephus (as well as Tacitus), reporting on the conclusion of the Jewish war, reported a prophecy that around the time when Jerusalem and the Second Temple would be taken, a man from their own nation, viz. the Messiah, would become governor “of the habitable earth”. Josephus interpreted the prophecy to denote Vespasian and his appointment as emperor in Judea.”

One of the more entertaining theorists of ‘Christ-myth’ history, Joseph Atwill, in his 2005 book Caesar’s Messiah, proposes that the Gospels and Jesus were nothing more than Flavian fanfiction written by Josephus and others, concocting Christianitity as a pacifist and pro-Roman religion as a solution to the problem of militant Judaism. Although apparently Atwill proposes that the Son of Man in the Gospels was Vespasian’s son Titus – which would make a Flavian holy trinity of Vespasian the Father, Titus the Son, and Domitian the Holy Spirit…?

Back to more mundane earthly matters, aided by the spoils of war from the Jewish Temple, Vespasian restored the finances and treasury of the empire, through tax reform and other means, most famously the urine tax on public toilets (such that urinals are named for him in modern Romance languages) with an anecdotal saying attributed to him that money doesn’t stink.

Apart from the First Jewish-Roman War, Vespasian suppressed the (second) Batavian Rebellion in Gaul and expanded the Roman conquest of Britain in campaigns led by the skilled general Agricola.

“Vespasian was known for his wit and his amiable manner alongside his commanding personality and military prowess..According to Suetonius, Vespasian ‘bore the frank language of his friends, the quips of pleaders, and the impudence of the philosophers with the greatest patience'”. Hence, it could be said that Vespasian had a flair for diplomacy and tact to rival Augustus (in marked contrast to his younger son) – and at a similarly critical juncture to placate the Senate and secure the stability of the principate under a new dynasty.

Dying of diarrhea (no, really), “Vespasian appears to have approached his own impending cult” (of imperial divinity) “with dry humour: according to Suetonius, his last words were puto deus fio (“I think I’m turning into a god”).

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

The Flavian dynasty of…chads. One of only two dynasties to be depicted by Dovahhatty as consisting entirely of chads – and rightly so.

RANKING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(2) TIBERIUS –
JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY
(14 – 37 AD: 22 YEARS 5 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

Like Claudius, you could arguably swap Tiberius into the top ten, albeit probably with more protest than for Claudius as some people – including contemporary Roman historians – seem to rank Tiberius among the worst. Even the Senate denied him the posthumous divine honors it gave Augustus and Claudius.

Those people are wrong. Indeed, it was a close call for me whom I ranked higher out of Claudius and Tiberius. As we’ve seen, ultimately I ranked Claudius higher, primarily because he inherited the empire from its worst emperor rather than its best – and because he was thrust into the position by the Praetorian Guard without any choice or preparation on his part.

Not that Tiberius was any happier to be emperor, although at least he had been nominated as heir in advance. “At the age of 55. Tiberius seems to have taken on the responsibilities of head of state with great reluctance…He came to be remembered as a dark, reclusive and sombre ruler who never really wanted to be emperor; Pliny the Elder called him ‘the gloomiest of men'”.

The problem for Tiberius is that he was overshadowed by Augustus as his predecessor, even in his own eyes. Perhaps foremost for his contemporaries was his absence of conquests as emperor, accustomed as they were to measuring an emperor by this criterion.

In my eyes, the prudence of Tiberius was exactly what the doctor ordered to consolidate the empire of Augustus – effectively Tiberius was the Hadrian to Augustus’ Trajan, but without withdrawing from any territory.

“Rather than embark on costly campaigns of conquest, he chose to strengthen the existing empire by building additional bases, using diplomacy as well as military threats, and generally refraining from getting drawn into petty squabbles between competing frontier tyrants. The result was a stronger, more consolidated empire, ensuring the imperial institutions introduced by his adoptive father would remain for centuries to come”.

This also overlooks that Tiberius had proved himself under Augustus as “one of the most successful Roman generals: his conquests of Pannonia, Dalmatia, Raetia, and (temporarily) parts of Germania laid the foundations for the empire’s northern frontier”.

It also overlooks an even better part of his prudence, though not unrelated to his prudence with respect to avoiding costly military campaigns – his financial prudence, rare among Roman emperors, such that he left the imperial treasury in huge surplus. Even Suetonius begrudged him that. While Suetonius notes that his successor and worst emperor Caligula squandered this, one wonders if the empire would have survived Caligula’s financial depredations otherwise – or whether the empire would have weathered its crisis of the first century, also known as the Year of the Four Emperors, quite so well but for the part Tiberius played in the empire’s military and financial consolidation.

Of course, it wasn’t just Augustus who overshadowed Tiberius, but Tiberius himself – particularly the latter part of his reign, after he retreated into isolation in Capri from 26 AD and his reign descended into despotism and depravity, albeit both overstated by Roman historians. The former accompanied the rise and fall of his Praetorian prefect Sejanus who effectively ruled Rome in his absence, while the latter was attributed to him in Capri by Suetonius. Let’s just say the less said about his little fishes the better – personally, I think it was just tabloid gossip made up or passed on by Suetonius. He’d probably be in a shoo-in for top ten if he’d died about halfway through his reign.

And like Claudius, when it came to a successor, he chose…poorly.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Like Claudius, the other emperor above all others destined to be depicted as a wojak – he “hated triumphs, hated people, hated being alive” (and pretty much hated being emperor as well.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(1) CLAUDIUS –

JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(41-54 AD: 13 YEARS 8 MONTHS 19 DAYS)

“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”

Yes – it’s the first of six special mentions where you could arguably swap them into the top ten best emperors without too much protest.

It was a close call between Claudius and the other good imperial candidate from the Julio-Claudian dynasty who is my next special mention entry. Claudius just won out for a few reasons, but primarily because he inherited the empire from the worst emperor as opposed to the best. And I use inherited very loosely, as he was not a formal heir but was thrust into his position as emperor by the Praetorian Guard after they had assassinated his predecessor, Caligula – the tradition is that one of the Guard found him hiding behind a curtain and declared him emperor.

Also, Claudius was put upon throughout his life – hence Dovahhatty’s catchphrase for him “such was life for Uncle Claudius”, originating from his physical infirmities he had since youth, including a limp and stammer, although he claimed to have exaggerated them to survive the reign of Caligula.

And a lot of people have a soft spot for him from his sympathetic portrayal in Robert Graves’ I, Claudius and its BBC TV adaptation.

Anyway, he was thrown headfirst into the position of emperor without any choice or background for it on his part and he did a pretty damn good job of it, essentially emulating Augustus and pulling it off to a substantial degree.

He was an able and efficient administrator, above all restoring the empire’s finances after their ruination by the excesses of Caligula’s reign – while also being an ambitious builder of projects and public works across the empire and in its capital.

He also expanded the empire in its first (and most enduring) major expansion since Augustus – annexing or completing the annexation of Thrace (so that the empire finally encircled the Mediterranean completely), Noricum, Lycia, Judaea and Mauretania – but is best known for the conquest of Britain during his reign, although Rome might have been better off without that province in the long run.

His biggest drawback was his choice of successor as Nero, albeit secured largely through his wife (and Nero’s mother) Agrippina’s manipulation of him – including, as it was widely believed by contemporaries, murdering him by poison.

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT?

If ever an emperor was destined to be depicted as a wojak, it was Claudius. Also, I now can’t imagine Claudius without thinking of Dovahhatty’s catchphrase for him – “such was life for Uncle Claudius” – as encapsulating how put upon Claudius was (and what a sad sack of a life he had).

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XII: The Five Good Emperors (depicting Trajan and peak Rome)

That’s right – I’m ranking all the Roman emperors (until 476 AD). By definition, my top ten best Roman emperors only ranked those ten, but I rank the balance of Roman emperors in these special mentions. My usual rule is twenty special mentions for a top ten – here I have twenty special mentions for the ‘good’ emperors and twenty for the ‘bad’.

To my surprise, I was able to make out twenty special mentions for the ‘good’ emperors with some more arguable entries, taking me up to those emperors right on my dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors.

Surprise that is, because there were notoriously more bad than good emperors, although the bad emperors tended to reign for shorter periods so it more than evens up by length of reign (otherwise one might think the empire would have collapsed sooner).

I think one can usually list about twenty ‘good’ emperors without too much contest or controversy but will start to peter out or at least get a little heated after that. However, I stand by my twenty special mentions, including the two emperors right on my dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors, which would give Rome thirty ‘good’ emperors all up (including my Top 10 Roman Emperors).

Or perhaps thirty-two if you extend my dividing line to the two emperors right on the threshold of being ‘good’ emperors in my special mentions for ‘bad’ emperors. Spoiler – they’re the founders of the two worst Roman imperial dynasties before 476 AD.

To recap those top 10 best Roman emperors ahead of these special mentions:

1 – Augustus

2 – Trajan

3 – Aurelian

4 – Hadrian

5 – Constantine

6 – Marcus Aurelius

7 – Probus

8 – Diocletian

9 – Valentinian

10 – Majorian

EMPIRE MAKER / SAVIOR / BASER OR EMPIRE BREAKER / DEBASER / DEBAUCHER

In addition to my usual star and tier-rankings, I also have my own particular (and hence subjective) rankings for those (good) emperors that made or saved the empire (or strengthened its base) – or the (bad) emperors that broke, debased or debauched it. Given these are my special mentions for good emperors, I’ll throw in whether they are empire makers, saviors or basers after their star and tier rankings.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Finally, because I have used Youtuber Dovahhatty’s Unbiased History of Rome animated video series as the source of images to depict each emperor, I’ll rank how well Dovahhatty did in his depiction of them.  His Unbiased History of Rome videos are probably my single biggest influence for Roman history – and certainly on Youtube.

While he does not actually rank the emperors as a whole, he does rank them individually by meme cartoon figures as being (good) chads or (bad) virgins, with the occasional (good or bad) wojaks. Of course, his tongue is firmly in his parody cheek, such as when he depicts some of the worst Roman emperors as the chads they proclaimed themselves to be.