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 other suspected, then and since, to be murder done by Arbogast or on his orders.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(15) TETRARCHY –
SEVERUS II, MAXIMINUS II, LICINUS, MAXIMIAN & GALERIUS
(286-324 AD)

For all that the Tetrarchy ended the Crisis of the Third Century, it didn’t see the end of the empire’s civil wars or problems of imperial succession – just fewer of them as historian Adrian Goldsworthy pointed out, in a more muted form of the crisis. The Tetrarchy itself devolved into civil war, with Constantine as ultimate victor.

That’s because the Tetrarchy was a bit of a hot mess, albeit less of a mess than the Crisis, when Diocletian wasn’t around to hold the hands of his co-emperors (except of course for Constantius and his son Constantine) – mostly because of the quality of these guys as his co-emperors, almost as hopeless as the archetypal Crisis emperors, with most of them ultimately proving to be only foils to Constantine in one form or another.

It’s even something of a hot mess just to explain, as you have at least four emperors milling around – the empire administratively divided into eastern and western empires, with a senior emperor or augustus, and a junior emperor or caesar (as successor in waiting to the senior emperor) in each, not counting other claimants popping up.

So again I ranked them all within the one special mention, but here goes ranking them against each other within the special mention.

SEVERUS II
(306-307: 8 MONTHS – WESTERN EMPIRE)

Really, I might well have ranked this guy among those short-lived emperors in my Crisis of the Third Century special mention.

Essentially a stooge of the emperor Galerius placing his nominees within the Tetrarchy to play it in his favor – Diocletian reportedly snorted at Galerius’ nomination of Severus “What! That dancer, that habitual drunkard who turns night into day and day into night?”

However, Galerius got Severus in as junior co-emperor or caesar to Constantius in the western empire – and Severus proved to be a foil to Constantine indirectly from the very outset, with Galerius nominating Severus as senior western emperor or augustus to trump Constantine when Constantius died and the British legions acclaimed Constantine as emperor. Constantine accepted the position of junior emperor or caesar in the westen empire.

That didn’t work out too well for Severus, who proceeded to get trounced by the revolt of Maxentius claiming the throne in Italy with the support of his father Maximian. Severus’ army deserted him to Maxentius when he besieged the latter in Rome, he fled to Ravenna, surrended to Maximian and was killed thereafter

MAXIMINUS II / MAXIMINUS “DAZA”
(310-313: 3 YEARS – EASTERN EMPIRE)

Somewhat better than Severus and similarly a placeman of Galerius, albeit with a closer connection as the nephew of Galerius, he divided the eastern empire between his co-emperor Licinus and himself.

And proved to be something of a foil for Constantine, albeit indirectly through the latter’s alliance with Licinus. When Constantine and Licinus began to make common cause, Maximinus allied with the usurper Maxentius in Italy of all people. He then got utterly trounced by Licinus in battle and fled defeat to die ignominously.

LICINUS
(308-321: 15 YEARS 10 MONTHS 8 DAYS – WESTERN AND THEN EASTERN EMPIRE)

Speaking of Licinus, he was a reasonably shrewd if ruthless operator – until of course along came Constantine. Part of that ruthlessness was seeking out and killing relatives of the Tetrarchs, including Diocletian’s wife and daughter.

Licinus was another colleague of Galerius, who essentially elevated him to senior western emperor or augustus to replace Severus and to oppose Maxentius in Italy, albeit he was also essentially limited to the provinces under his immediate command in the Balkans. Not for long though, because he added the European part of the eastern empire to his domain (which was officially the western empire) when Maximinus II divided up the eastern empire with him when Galerius died.

Licinus and Constantine allied with each other against Maximinus and Maxentius. Licinius trounced Maximinus in the east and Constantine trounced Maxentius in Italy – which greatly simplified the Tetrarchy leaving the last two emperors standing, with Constantine as sole western emperor and Licinus as sole eastern emperor. No prizes for guessing how that turned out – the inevitable civil war between them, albeit with pauses of peace or treaties, which Constantine ultimately won and had Licinus executed after tha latter attempted to regain power with support from…the Goths. The barbarian horror of it all!

MAXIMIAN
(286-305: 19 YEARS 1 MONTH – WESTERN EMPIRE)
(306-308: 2 YEARS – ITALY BUT I’M NOT REALLY COUNTING THIS BOTCHED USURPATION)

Ah – Maximian, the archetypal emperor of the Tetrarchy who really was a bit of a disaster without Diocletian holding him by the hand, despite basically being Diocletian’s main partner as co-emperor, augustus of the western empire while Diocletian was augustus of the eastern empire.

I mean he just seemed to go from one royal screw-up to the next, particularly towards the end – which seems to make Diocletian acclaiming him as the Hercules to Diocletian’s Jupiter something of a joke. In fairness, Maximian was a competent soldier – the origin of Diocletian giving him the title of Hercules as the brawn to Diocletian’s brains – particularly against the German barbarians menacing the western empire (and also in Africa against the barbarians raiding the empire there).

Where to begin? Well, it all pretty much went downhill for Maximian when his naval commander Carausius rebelled and claimed Britain and coastal Gaul for the so-called Britannic Empire. Maximian botched the naval invasion to restore it to the Roman empire, losing the fleet in the process and thereafter had something of a tacit truce with Carausius. However, Diocletian was having none of that and sent in Constantius as junior emperor or caesar of the western empire to clean up Maximian’s mess.

It gets worse – after Diocletian made Maximian join him in abdicating and retiring from their position as augusti, Maximian’s worthless son Maxentius revolted to usurp the throne in Italy, so of course Maximian joined the revolt as co-emperor to his son, only to fall out with his son and be forced from Italy. He sought refuge with Constantine – “the only court that would still accept him” – only to unsuccessfully rebel against Constantine and be left with no other option than suicide.

GALERIUS
(305-311: 6 YEARS – EASTERN EMPIRE)

In fairness, I might have ranked Galerius somewhat higher, as he led a pretty good campaign against the Sassanid Persians prior to his reign as emperor – albeit characteristically after initially botching it and being bailed out by Diocletian.

After Diocletian abdicated, Galerius became senior emperor or augustus of the eastern empire (with Constantius as augustus of the western empire). Galerius tried to mastermind the Tetrarchy in the same way as Diocletian but just couldn’t pull it off.

Indeed, his efforts saw its most confusing array yet, with more emperors than before or subsquently, in what might well have been called the Year of Seven Emperors – Galerius himself as augustus in the east, Maximinus II as caesar in the east, Licinus as augustus of the west in the Balkans, Constantine now with Maximian in train in the west, Maxentius in Italy and Domitius Alexander in Africa.

Also, like his stooge Severus, he failed to suppress the revolt of Maxentius in Italy, his campaign making little headway until he was forced to withdraw, barely persuading his troops not to desert him – although unlike Severus at least he was able to withdraw with his troops and life intact.

He also went all-in on Diocletian’s persecution of Christians – indeed being attributed as the driving force behind it – despite having to subsequently admit its failure.

However, at least he was one of the few leaders of the Tetarchy not to die in its civil wars – but instead dying horribly of disease.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(11) 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 it ultimately led to one of its best imperial dynasties, the Flavian dynasty.

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 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”.

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 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.

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

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.

Youtuber Dovhahhatty said it best – “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”.

Their archetypal weakness 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.

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.””

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 – above all from a position or at a time of supreme imperial power.

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

Indeed, it is hard to imagine that even those emperors in my top ten best emperors could have done much from the position of the last western emperors who ruled after Majorian.

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, particularly given that he was a child briefly enthroned by his father as his nickname signified.

However, I have decided to rank them all together in one special mention, although arguably that’s not fair to two or three of them, who might otherwise rank somewhat more favorably as not as archetypally weak as the others or at least put up some resistance to the weakness of their position.

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

First, the four who rank 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. Also at least during his reign, 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)

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 a revival of Roman power under a figure such as Majorian, the western empire didn’t seem to have much prospect for survival on its own but two options involving an alliance or merger with the only 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, the best and most loyal of Rome’s Germanic foederati – particularly their king Theodoric II, having 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. In the meantime however, Petronius Maximus was killed by the Roman mob and the Vandals sacked Rome, so Theodoric II acclaimed him as emperor instead.

Avitus opposed the reduction of the empire to Italy alone – one might think for good reasons of Gaul being both as I understand it 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 – as per Spectrum “the army, the Senate, the people, the east”. So yes – he was deposed for his trouble but spared on condition that he became a bishop, although he may well 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.”

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.

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 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.

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

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

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

The embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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