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

(15) CONSTANTINE III –

USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY

(407-411: 4 YEARS: WESTERN EMPIRE)

Fake Constantine as Dovahhatty calls him – but I like him to an extent, enough to rank him as least bad of the usurpers in my dishonorable mentions (and indeed, least bad of all my dishonorable mentions, usurper or not).

Yes, he was a usurper, once again from that province of usurpers, Roman Britain – and arguably at the worst possible time, with the western empire reeling from the infamous Crossing of the Rhine (of Germanic tribes into Gaul).

I say arguably, because as bad as the time was for the empire, he was usurping the western emperor Honorius and there was never a bad time for that – Honorius was one of the worst emperors and certainly the worst western emperor.

Admittedly that meant Constantine was also opposed to Stilicho, Honorius’ military commander that was holding the empire together – but Stilicho had his hands full, not to mention his main army, with Germanic incursions into Italy itself, notably the Vandals and the Visigoths, the latter led by Alaric. That is why Stilicho could only send a small subordinate force under Sarus the Goth against Constantine III. However, nothing Constantine III did was as bad for Stilicho as the latter’s betrayal and execution in 408 at the hands of his own emperor, Honorius.

Constantine also gets bonus points as a common soldier, not even an officer, which is pretty impressive for an imperial claimant that succeeded in his claim to the extent that he was actually recognized as co-emperor by Honorius, albeit for a limited period from 409 to 411 and because Honorius was in dire circumstances and had to placate him.

Constantine gets even more bonus points as, like other usurpers from Roman Britain such as Magnus Maximus, he was admired by Britons to the extent of being immortalized in British legend – indeed to higher extent than any other as the father of Uther Pendragon and hence grandfather of King Arthur.

Of course, that admiration from Briton is somewhat ironic since Constantine III marked the decisive withdrawal of Roman forces from Britain – leading Rome’s mobile forces in Britain to Gaul for his usurpation of the western empire, albeit something of a recurring plot point in British legend as King Arthur was to do much the same.

If ever I rank all the imperial Constantines, he’d probably stack up reasonably well and would at least outrank Constantine II. I anticipate he’d rank the more legitimate Constantine III, otherwise known as Heraclius Constantine in the eastern empire, who ruled only three months before dying of tuberculosis.

Anyway, although originating from revolt in Britain, Constantine abandoned Britain itself, taking all of the Roman mobile troops and their commander Gerontius to confront the Germanic tribes who had infamously crossed the Rhine in 406.

Thereafter Gaul became the stronghold of his imperial claim – “with a mixture of fighting and diplomacy Constantine stabilised the situation and established control over Gaul and Hispania (modern Spain and Portugal), establishing his capital at Arles”.

However, his hold over Hispania proved more tenuous than that over Gaul, as the relatives of Honorius rose up in revolt and expelled his administration, which was the most energetic or useful that they or Honorius would ever prove to be.

Constantine sent an army under the commander Gerontius to re-establish his authority, while also successfully repelling the forces of Honorius led by Sarus the Goth against him from Gaul. This resulted in the high point of his imperial claim in early 409, when Honorius was compelled by necessity of circumstance to recognize Constantine as emperor. Constantine then elevated his son Constans, previously a monk, as his own co-emperor and heir.

And then it all fell apart for Constantine. Later in 409, Gerontius rebelled in Hispania, proclaiming his own pet imperial candidate Maximus and inciting barbarian groups in Gaul to revolt. Constantine sent Constans to quash the revolt, but this failed with Constans retreating back to Arles – as did Constantine’s own attempt to invade northern Italy, with Constantine similarly withdrawing back to Arles.

The noose tightened around Constantine. Another attempt by Constans against Gerontius in Hispania failed, this time with Gerontius pursuing Constans into Gaul, killing Constans at Vienne in 411 and besieging Constantine in Arles itself. In the meantime, Honorius was emboldened by his new capable replacement for Stilicho as military commander (and his future co-emperor), Constantius III, to renege on his recognition of, and reclaim Gaul from, Constantine.

Constantius “arrived at Arles while Gerontius was outside the city. Much of Gerontius’s army deserted to Constantius, who took over the siege. A force attempting to relieve Constantine was ambushed. Constantine abdicated, took holy orders, and – promised his life – surrendered”. That promise was not kept – he was executed instead and his head sent to Honorius.

Shout-out to his son and co-emperor Constans as previously mentioned – once again like other similar sons elevated to co-emperors by usurpers (Marcus for Basiliscus and Victor for Magnus Maximus), it’s a shout-out because he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Constantine.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

It’s hard to resist Dovahhatty’s consistent naming of him as Fake Constantine, reflected in the depiction of him as wojak – and one of the most smug at that.

RATING: 2 STARS**

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

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

(14) MAGNUS MAXIMUS –

USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(383 – 388: 5 YEARS 3 DAYS)

As per Dovahhatty – “A dude that named himself Magnus Maximus – the best, the greatest – who wasn’t either”

Still, as usurpers go, he wasn’t that bad, usurping the western emperor Gratian similar to Magnentius before him usurping Constans.

What keeps him from crossing the line between good and bad usurpers is firstly, that he usurped Gratian, an emperor I also consider as not that bad, deserving of some rehabilitation of reputation, albeit still somewhat lackluster.

And secondly, that he was defeated by the eastern emperor Theodosius – despite formerly serving in the army with both Theodosius and the father of Theodosius, Count Theodosius or Theodosius the Elder – hence effectively setting up the worst imperial dynasty, the Theodosian dynasty, in both eastern and western empires. I could have forgiven Maximus for everything else if he’d won. At very least, it’s hard to see how he could have done worse for the western empire than what happened with his defeat.

Maximus became a distinguished general in his army service, gaining “the support of his fellow soldiers and the admiration of the Romano-Britons whom he defended” when he defeated an incursion of the Picts and Scots in 381 AD. Interestingly, that admiration persisted in his status in British or Arthurian legend – something the Britons did for other usurpers originating from Roman Britain, although in fairness the province didn’t produce much else for Rome other than usurpers.

Like Constans before him, the western emperor Gratian became vulnerable to an imperial claim by Maximus – and for similar reasons, neglecting the affairs of state and favoring his barbarian soldiers, the latter in a particularly suggestive way albeit perhaps not as suggestive as the accusations against Constans.

And so Gratian’s army deserted to Maximus, who had raised the standard of revolt in Britain and invaded Gaul to advance that competing imperial claim, taking a large part of the Roman garrison and government in Britain with him – so much so that some historians attribute the end of direct Roman imperial presence in Britain to him

Gratian fled, only to be pursued and killed in Gaul by forces loyal to Maximus, leaving Gratian’s half-brother Valentinian II – 12 years of age at the time – as the only other imperial claimant in the western empire.

Indeed, Maximus continued his campaign into Italy and might well have eliminated Valentinian but for being forestalled by a number of factors – the defense of Italy by the Frankish general Bauto as magister militum of the western empire, the intervention of the bishop Ambrose of Milan, and an accord with Theodosius in which Maximus was recognised as augustus or emperor of the western empire while Valentinian II remained in Italy.

Maximus made his capital at Trier in Gaul – ruling Britain, Gaul, Hispania and Africa. The Roman historian Orosius wrote that Maximus was “an energetic and able man and one worthy of the throne had he not risen to it by usurpation, contrary to his oath of allegiance”.

Ultimately, Maximus again turned his attention to Valentinian, forcing the latter (and Valentinian’s mother Justinian) to flee Milan to Theodosius in the eastern empire – prompting Theodosius to campaign against Maximus to restore Valentinian as western emperor, at least in name as a placeholder for the dynastic ambitions of Theodosius in both eastern and western empires.

The forces of Theodosius decisively defeated Maximus at the Battle of Poetovio in 388 AD – Maximus surrendered and was executed at Aquileia.

Shout-out to Victor as son and co-emperor of Maximus, suffering the same fate of defeat and execution as his father – it’s a shout-out because like Marcus as the son of Basiliscus, he does not feature in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors other than a brief mention in parenthesis with Maximus.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yes – as per my opening quote, as well as my feature image from Dovahhatty depicting Maximus as wojak.

RATING: 2 STARS**

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(13) MAGNENTIUS

USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN (WESTERN EMPIRE)

(350-353 AD: 3 YEARS 6 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

And now we come to the first of two usurpers, similar to each other in usurping two similar emperors – also similar to each other approaching the dividing line between bad and good usurpers.

Approaching but not quite, as I consider the two emperors they usurped were also approaching the dividing line between bad and good emperors, deserving of some rehabilitation of reputation as emperors even if still somewhat lackluster.

In the case of Magnentius, he usurped the emperor Constans. Constans had a promising start as emperor, even as a child emperor – most promising of all, he was one of three sons of Constantine who each inherited a third of the empire as co-emperors from their father. He had defeated the Sarmatians in a campaign as a teenage co-emperor before defeating the attempt of his oldest brother Constantine II to usurp him, adding the latter’s realm of the western part of the empire to his own. He then ruled as a western emperor who was reasonably robust in defending the western empire – campaigning successfully against the Franks.

And then it all went wrong for Constans – usurped by Magentius and killed when his legions deserted him due to him being “entirely too gay” and ‘favoring’ his barbarian soldiers in a suggestive way. No, really – the surviving sources accuse him of misrule and homosexuality, albeit probably influenced by the propaganda of Magnentius’ faction.

How much of it is true is another matter – one presumes that if he was as licentious as the sources depict him, it was a quality originating from his youth but only reached a tipping point into incompetence and misrule later in his reign, given his earlier effectiveness as emperor.

Whatever the case, Constans became vulnerable to an imperial claim by Magnentius, a military commander or general in his army, as supported by a conspiracy among court officials. Isolating and killing Constans was the easy part, albeit not done by Magnentius personally but by solders under his command.

So too was gaining control of most of Constans’ former realm of the western empire – quickly picking up Britannia, Gaul, Hispania, Italy, and Africa. He briefly lost control of Rome to another usurper (and dishonorable mention entry) Nepotianus but regained it. More substantially, another usurper Vetranio blocked him from gaining control of Illyria – and hence the last part of the former western empire under Constans (earning Vetranio honorable mention as good usurper).

The bigger problem was the remaining son of Constantine, the eastern emperor Constantius II, seeking to avenge Constans and reassert the Constantinian dynasty over the whole empire.

In classic usurper fashion, Magnentius was an outsider with no family relationship to Constantine and hence no dynastic claim. Instead, he posed as the western empire’s liberator from the tyranny of Constans to court public support. In fairness, he appears to have been reasonably competent as ruler.

However, that wasn’t going to help him with the bigger problem of Constantius – he originally sought a diplomatic solution to that problem, hoping to “induce” Constantius to recognize him as the legitimate western emperor.

In hindsight of just how costly in casualties among the Roman legions their civil war was to be, a diplomatic solution may well have been better – but it is difficult to see what else Constantius could have done or how his own position could have been secure if he had accepted Magnentius’ usurpation of his brother.

In any event, the war between Magnentius and Constantius II was one of Rome’s costliest civil wars, with even contemporary writers and apparently Constantius himself lamenting its losses from the legions as a disaster for the defense of the empire. Constantius defeated Magnentius at the decisive battle of Mursa Major in 351 AD, although the war dragged on until the final battle of Mons Seleucis in 353 AD, after which Magnentius committed the proverbial Roman act of falling on his sword.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

I think so – wojak but not too wojak. Nice pun with Vetranio as his opponent calling him Magnet.

RATING: 2 STARS**

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVI: Constantine the Great

(12) MAXENTIUS –

USURPER: TETRARCHY (ITALY & AFRICA)

(306 – 312 AD: 6 YEARS)

One of the worst usurpers, consistent with Dovahhatty’s description of him as a “an ambitious little c-” – well, I won’t finish the last word but it starts with c and it definitely isn’t caesar.

On the other hand, it’s hard not to have some sneaking admiration for his endurance as an usurper, a reign of six years being quite the feat and in the heart of the empire no less, albeit Rome had waned in importance during the Tetrarchy.

As per Youtuber 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. Then Constantine happened.”

Those two emperors were Severus II, essentially a flunky of Galerius, and Galerius himself, although I think Spectrum gives too much credit to Maxentius as opposed to his father, Maximian, who was really behind the skilful defense of cities in Italy, particularly against Galerius.

Other redeeming features were arguably those of being the last emperor to permanently reside in Rome itself, as well as being a prolific builder in that city during his reign.

Maxentius essentially came to power as Diocletian’s Tetrarchy crumbled into civil war – well, more into civil war, after Diocletian’s death. The son of Diocletian’s western co-augustus or co-emperor Maximian, Maxentius might well have expected to succeed his father, but was bypassed for the throne when Diocletian abdicated and made Maximian abdicate as well.

However, when Constantine succeeded his father Constantius as caesar (or junior emperor) in the western empire, that set the precedent for a son to succeed his imperial father and Maxentius took the opportunity – presented by revolt of the populace in Rome, prompted by rumors of their exemption from taxation being withdrawn, and by the Praetorians prompted by rumors of being disbanded – to be acclaimed as emperor in Italy and Africa.

Galerius as eastern emperor or augustus was having none of that (despite being Maxentius’ father-in-law) – and his candidate that he had acclaimed as western emperor or augustus, Severus II, marched south from north Italy to quell the usurpation. No doubt they and most other people expected that to be quick, but to everyone’s surprise, Severus was defeated (and ultimately killed after surrendering) – albeit the decisive factor was Maximian, since most of Severus’ army had served under Maximian and defected to his son. Maximian himself joined in his son’s usurpation as co-emperor.

Then it was Galerius’ turn to march into Italy against Maxentius (and Maximian) and also to be defeated in the attempt to quell the usurpation, although he succeeded in withdrawing his army intact from Italy, albeit barely.

It becomes a hot mess after that, much like the Tetrarchy and its civil wars. Despite helping Maxentius win against Galerius, Maximian attempted to depose his son but lost but was deposed himself, fleeing to Constantine’s court.

Domitius Alexander usurped the usurper in Africa, being proclaimed emperor there and posing a real danger to Maxentius as Africa was critical to Rome’s food supply, but Maxentius ultimately succeeded in defeating Domitius and reclaiming Africa.

However, things were less rosy for Maxentius elsewhere. In the meantime, Galerius had died, being succeeded by Licinus and Maximinus II as co-emperors in the eastern empire – ultimately things devolved into a civil war with Maxentius and Maximinus on one side and Licinus and Constantine on the other.

No prizes for guessing the victor in that one, as Constantine was always the winning side. As Spectrum said, “then Constantine came” – Maxentius was defeated by Constantine at the famous battle of Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312 AD, with its equally famous legend of divine vision to Constantine before the battle, telling him “in this sign, you shall conquer”. He came, he saw, he conquered – and Maxentius drowned as his defeated army tried to flee back across the river.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Mostly, as per the quote at the start and the depiction as memetic virgin, although I lean somewhat into Spectrum’s admiration for him (ranking him among the ten most underrated emperors).

RATING: 2 STARS**

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Procopius getting the sharp end of the sword from the soldiers of the victorious Valens in Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(11) PROCOPIUS –

USURPER: VALENTINIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE)

(365 – 366 AD: 7 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

And now we’re getting to the big league of usurpers. Procopius is the smallest – and briefest – of them but he 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.

Procopius took part in Emperor Julian’s campaign against the Sassanid Persians, entrusted with command of an army to join forces with the Armenian king and march southwards to join Julian’s main army in Assyria. However, he only joined the main army after Julian had died and it was retreating under Julian’s successor, Jovian. Dovahhatty implies that this was deliberate on the part of Procopius, but I’m not sure whether this is simply an invention by Dovahhatty as I have not seen any other source for it.

Due to rumors that Julian had ordered him to be imperial successor, he spent his time in hiding or on the run, firstly from Jovian and then from Valentinian and Valens who sent soldiers to arrest him. He decided that the best defense was a good offense – audaciously going to the capital of the eastern empire in Constantinople, acclaiming himself emperor there amidst discontent caused by Valens father-in-law, bribing two legions to support him and worst of all, allying with the Goths under their king Ermanaric against Valens.

Valens initially despaired of subduing the usurpation, particularly as his brother Valentinian was preoccupied with defending the western empire against Germanic barbarian tribes, but soon rallied against Procopius. The superior ability of his generals defeated the forces of Procopius, who again went on the run only to be betrayed, captured and executed.

As for those Goths, they arrived too late to help Procopius but kicked off the Gothic Wars instead, ultimately leading to the disastrous Roman defeat at Adrianople and the proverbial Fall of the Roman Empire.

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT?

Dovahhatty does Procopius somewhat dirty, not so much in portraying him as a memetic virgin but more by that implication of treachery to Emperor Julian – which I have not seen in any other source.

RATING: 2 STARS**

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(10) NEPOTIANUS –

USURPER: CONSTANTINIAN (ITALY)

(350 AD: 27 DAYS)

Technically a usurper but like Vetranio in my honorable mentions, he was effectively a counter-usurper, usurping another usurper – indeed in the very same year, 350 AD, against the very same usurper, Magnentius, who had usurped the Constantinian dynasty in the western empire, usurping Constans as western emperor, and facing off the eastern emperor and older brother of Constans, Constantius II. Yes – I know that’s a lot of usurping in that last sentence, but that pretty much sums up the Roman empire at times.

Unlike Vetranio, who did his usurping at the request of Constantine’s daughter – the sister of Constans and Constantius II – to protect her family (and hold the line for Constantius), Nepotianus actually was part of the family in the Constantinian dynasty, being the son of Constantine’s half-sister.

Where Vetranio effectively blocked Magentius from moving eastwards into Illyria, Nepotianus tried to block Magnetius from Rome itself – which is where he asserted his imperial claim for 27 days until Magnentius sent a trusted military subordinate to Rome to crush the revolt, literally parading Nepotianus’ head on a stick (well, lance) around the city after defeating and killing him.

What stops me from ranking Nepotianus similarly to Vetranio as a good usurper for honorable mention is just how brief and ineffectual his attempt to usurp the throne in Rome was – and that unlike Vetranio, Nepotianus’ attempt may have been a genuine bid for the imperial throne, which would make it even more pathetic, not least in that it saw him get killed rather than retire peacefully as Vetranio did.

On the other hand, he gets bonus points – and higher numerical ranking than other dishonorable mentions so far – 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!

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

I feel Dovahhatty short-changed Nepotianus by not featuring him in full but only as an icon on the map – a wojak face. Still, I like the humor of his mother pleading with him against his coup attempt, as she was killed after it as well.

RATING: 2 STARS**

X-TIER (WILD TIER)