Decius (on left obviously given the caption) and Philip the Arab (on right) in Dovahhatty Unbiased History of Rome: Crisis of the Third Century

(13) PHILIP THE ARAB & DECIUS
(PHILIP THE ARAB – CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 244-249 AD: 5 YEARS 7-8 MONTHS)
(DECIUS – CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY 249-251: 1 YEAR 8-9 MONTHS)

We’re not quite done with the Crisis of the Third Century yet in our worst emperors – there’s still these two emperors in succession presiding over almost eight years of the Crisis that were just a cut above the other emperors we’ve looked at so far.

Enter Philip the Arab – one of the more interestingly named emperors, although I think history missed the opportunity to call him Arab Phil, proclaimed as emperor by the troops on campaign against the Persians after the death of his predecessor Gordian III, possibly in a plot by Philip as praetorian prefect or possibly in defeat by the Persians in battle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a close call between them – Philip had the longer reign but I just like Decius more, what with that exhortation to his troops and all.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yes – the wojak Philip and the chad Decius, the latter surprisingly chill.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: The Severan Dynasty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yeah – Dovahhatty is having none of it either, with his depiction of Macrinus as memetic virgin, not surprisingly given his chadly depiction of Caracalla and the Severan dynasty in general (yes, even Elagabalus). Still, you have to give Dovahhatty’s Macrinus for his brazenly feigned surprise at the assassination of Caracalla as captioned in my feature image.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

With his usual contrarian humor, Dovahhatty depicts Galba as a chad – perhaps not as tongue in cheek as his depictions of Caligula, Nero, Caracalla and Elagabalus as chads but getting there. His Otho as wokak is spot on, as is the delivery of his script upon finding out Galba had appointed another successor – “and Otho was LIVID!” (Obviously not the scene depicted in the screenshot for my feature image, which depicts a happier relationship between them, at least from Otho’s perspective).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BALBINUS & PUPIENUS
(238 AD: 99 DAYS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUINTILLUS
(270 AD: 17-77 DAYS?)

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

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

FLORIANUS
(276 AD: 80-88 DAYS)

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

AEMILIAN / AEMILIANUS
(253 AD: 88 DAYS?)

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

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

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

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

As with the last western Roman emperors, I thought Dovahhatty’s depiction of the Crisis emperors was summed up by the two memetic virgins Balbinus and Pupienus each accusing the other of being a bad emperor. Spoiler – they were both right.

Otherwise, Dovahhatty’s depictions in order of my rankings –

GORDIAN I: Wojak

GORDIAN II: Wojak

QUINTILLUS: Virgin (predictably since he opposed Aurelian, Dovahhatty’s favorite emperor)

FLORIANUS: Virgin

AEMILIAN: Wojak

NUMERIAN: Wojak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yet another emperor doomed to be depicted as wojak – I do love his wide-eyed facial expression in that screenshot, as well as Argobast asking him “Who are you, again?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The archetypal weakness of the last western Roman emperors is such that you could arguably swap all of them into my top ten worst emperors and indeed I considered Romulus Augustulus for my wildcard tenth place given how well he symbolized them as well as the irony of his name. In the end, I considered that they ranked special mention as opposed to other emperors with more notorious cruelty and depravity or that were more actively destructive – or both, above all those who ruled from a position or at at time of greater imperial power.

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

So I also considered that it wouldn’t be fair to simply rank the last non-dynastic western Roman emperors in my top ten worst emperors – with the notable exception of Petronius Maximus, whom I did consider to be actively destructive enough for my wildcard tenth place entry. That’s so even for poor Romulus Augustulus despite the notoriety of his name and status as the last western emperor – and somewhat surprisingly, he actually ranked in the middle of the pack among these emperors, which I decided to rank both in and within the one special mention.

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

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

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

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

OLYBRIUS (472 AD: 7 MONTHS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And pretty much everyone in Rome hated him for it as the “foreign” emperor – and having invaded Hispania at his behest, Theodoric II was unable to help him against the rebel Roman generals who deposed him, although again he loses points for one of those generals being Majorian. So yes – he was deposed for his trouble but spared on condition that he became a bishop, only perhaps to have been killed afterwards anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Dovahhatty summed up the fate of the western empire and its last emperors best, as in my feature image with Odoacer and Romulus Augustulus – “When Odoacer broke through Ravenna’s gates, he didn’t find the all-powerful emperor of the civilized world…instead he found a weak, trembling child unable to protect himself, much less the people he nominally ruled”.

Although Dovahhatty depicted poor Romulus as a memetic virgin, it was more from sheer pathos than the usual reprehensible character for which Dovahhatty reserved depiction as virgins.

Otherwise, Dovahhatty’s depictions in order of my rankings –

AVITUS: Wojak

LIBIUS SEVERUS: Virgin

ANTHEMIUS: Wojak

OLYBRIUS: Wojak

GLYCERIUS: Wojak

JULIUS NEPOS: Wojak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT

The last virgin eastern emperor before the fall of the western empire – Yes, technically there was Zeno as I said, but Dovahhatty depicts him as a wojak. Although…Dovahhatty doesn’t even show him as emperor, only as the nameless Roman commander who lost the Battle of Cape Bon.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(5) CARINUS –
NON-DYNASTIC (CARAN DYNASTY) / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(283-285 AD: 2 YEARS)

And it’s my other special mention for a Crisis of the Third Century emperor who could arguably be swapped into the top ten worst emperors. The empire was almost out of the crisis but had to deal with this reprobate before he was defeated and killed in battle with a far better imperial claimant, Diocletian, whose reign finally ended the crisis.

Ironically, his father Carus was one of the people who had done their part to see an end to the crisis, hence ranking special mention in my good emperors, but the apple fell pretty far from the tree in this case. Given that he succeeded his father as emperor, that would technically make him part of a Caran dynasty but I’m counting it as non-dynastic because Carus disowned him on hearing how he ruled as co-emperor and declared an intention of replacing him with yet another better candidate (and special mention in my good emperors), Constantius. There was also his brother Numerian, who had accompanied their father on campaign against the Sassanid Persians (which saw both of them killed in succession) while Carinus had been appointed as co-emperor in the western empire.

“Carinus has the reputation of being one of the worst Roman emperors…dissolute and incompetent”.

“He indulged in all manner of extravagance and excess. He is said to have married and divorced nine different women during his short reign in Rome and to have made his private life notorious…to have persecuted many who he felt had treated him with insufficient respect before his elevation, to have alienated the Senate by his open dislike and contempt, and to have prostituted the imperial dignity with the various low entertainments he introduced at court”.

Despite (or perhaps because of) all his marriages, he was reputed to have been a little too…thirsty with the wives of his officers, which saw him ‘fragged’ by one such man at the Battle of Margus River against Diocletian. That and his army, which outnumbered that of Diocletian, deserted him to Diocletian.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yes – we’re talking a memetic virgin emperor here. Dovahhatty has some fun with Carinus “cucking” his officers with their wives and earning his fate at the hands of one of them.

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

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

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

The embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Classic virgin depiction.

I also like Dovahhatty borrowing from Captain America – “No, I don’t think I will” – as the caption in answer to Decius pleading for reinforcements. Indeed, Dovahhatty gives him some of the funniest captions, including the one I use as general feature image for these special mentions – “I. DON’T. CAAARE!”

Needless to say, Dovahhatty subscribes to the treason theory. Treason doesn’t pay as the Gothic leader Cniva demanded more tribute – “which of course Gallus couldn’t pay, that was the point, so he used this to invade the empire again”

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