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

(10) CONSTANTIUS III –
THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (WESTERN EMPIRE)
(421 AD: 6 MONTHS 25 DAYS)

My fourth and last special mention for an emperor that would have ranked higher but for his short reign – the shortest reign of these four special mentions – although similarly to the other special mentions, part of my top tier ranking for him is comprised by his achievements that saw him rise to the imperial throne.

Along with Marcian, he’s one of the two good emperors that are surprising to find in the Theodosian dynasty, but again like Marcian it’s because he married into it – marrying the sister of Honorius, Galla Placidia (after retrieving her from the Visigoths who had captured her in their sack of Rome in 410).

Essentially, Constantius III was Stilicho II. Not formally in any dynastic sense of course, but between them, they were the two supreme military commanders holding the western empire together under its worst emperor Honorius. However, unlike Stilicho whom Honorius betrayed and had executed, Constantius found favor with Honorius – probably because Honorius needed someone to save his empire after stabbing Stilicho in the back, which led to the sack of Rome by the Visigoths.

Ultimately that favor extended to Honorius making Constantius his co-emperor, hence the marriage to his sister. Alas, it was only for a few months before Constantius died from illness – one suspects that but for this untimely death, Constantius may well have forestalled the collapse of the western empire, at least for a longer period of time.

As for the achievements that saw him rise to co-emperor, Constantius was appointed in place of Stilicho as magister militum in 411, suppressing the revolt of the usurper Constantine III in that same year. He “then went on to lead campaigns against various barbarian groups in Hispania and Gaul, recovering much of both for the Western Roman Empire” – most notably against the Visigoths, forcing them into submission as foederati in agreed territory after their sack of Rome and waging war on Rome’s behalf against the Vandals and other hostile barbarians within the empire.

Thereafter the Visigoths were the most loyal of Rome’s new Germanic allies within the empire, certainly when it came to defending the empire against the Huns – “That Visigothic settlement proved paramount to Europe’s future as had it not been for the Visigothic warriors who fought side by side with the Roman troops under general Flavius Aetius, it is perhaps possible that Attila would have seized control of Gaul, rather than the Romans being able to retain dominance”.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(9) CONSTANTIUS –
TETRARCHY (ALTHOUGH COME ON – WASN’T HE REALLY CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY?): WESTERN EMPIRE
(305-306 AD: 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

Another special mention for an emperor that, while good, might well have ranked higher but for his short reign – and of course being overshadowed by his son Constantine as well as his own achievements prior to becoming emperor. Quick side bar – the name Constantius gets a pretty good run for quality of Roman emperors.

Short reign as augustus or senior emperor in the West that is – prior to that, he was the junior emperor or caesar for over 12 years from 293 AD, one of the members of the Tetrarchy and the only one consistently worth a damn apart from Diocletian.

And his short reign as augustus overlooks not only his successful reign as caesar but also his distinguished military career before that, serving under none other than Aurelian (against the Palmyrene Empire) as well as Aurelian’s successors.

Upon becoming caesar, his first task was to deal with the Carausian Revolt – effectively the secession of Britain and conquest of parts of the coastline of Gaul by the so-called Britannic Empire under the usurper Carausius – which the senior western emperor or augustus Maximian had royally failed to do.

That involved defeating the forces of Carausius in Gaul first, including the Franks that were allied with Carausius, before invading Britain itself and defeating the revolt, where the usurper Carausius had been usurped by his finance officer Allectus (which makes me see the position of chief financial officer in a whole new light).

He then returned to what he did best, both before and during the revolt – pounding Germanic barbarian tribes at the Rhine, particularly the Franks and Alamanni.

Upon his accession as augustus, Constantius replayed his greatest hits and returned to Britain, where he was joined by his son Constantine, campaigned against the Picts in the north and died of natural causes in York, recommending his son Constantine to his legions as his imperial heir.

Interestingly, because of the British connection, he assumed a role in that misty legendary British history before King Arthur.

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

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

(8) CLAUDIUS II / CLAUDIUS GOTHICUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(268-270 AD: 1 YEAR 11 MONTHS)

Another special mention for an emperor that would have ranked higher but for his short reign, truncated by his death from illness.

As it was, Claudius II – or Claudius Gothicus to give him his victory title – turned the tide on the Crisis of the Third Century, laying the foundations for Aurelian and Probus to restore the empire. He may well even have substituted for Aurelian as savior of the empire if he had lived longer to fulfil his goal of reuniting the lost territories of the empire, but Aurelian achieved it for him instead as his successor.

He also was the first of the so-called Illyrian emperors who renewed and led the Roman empire, most immediately in its third century crisis but more generally for the three centuries or so – soldier-emperors who rose to prominence through the ranks of the army and served with distinction as military commanders, usually in succession to each other. These emperors came from the region of Illyricum and other Danubian provinces – provinces of Illyria, Dalmatia, Dacia, Raetia, Pannonia and Moesia – that gave the empire the core of its army and its best commanders.

While a predecessor Decius (and his sons) also came from the Illyricum region, he hailed from the senatorial background, as opposed to the provincial professional soldiers of humble origin who rose through the ranks of the army. Hence the period of the Illyrian emperors proper started with Claudius, “the first in a series of tough ‘soldier emperors’ who would eventually restore the Empire after the Crisis of the Third Century”, including Aurelian and Probus. The Illyrian emperors rose to prominence and served with distinction as military commanders, generally in succession to each other.

“Before the rule of Claudius Gothicus, there had only been two emperors from the Balkans, but afterwards there would only be one emperor who did not hail from the provinces of Pannonia, Moesia or Illyricum until 378” (when Theodosisus I became emperor). Those emperors included four entries in my top ten – Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine and Valentinian – and Probus so far in my special mentions, as well as a few more to come. Not that they stopped in 378 either, but resumed subsequent to Theodosius I, albeit not as consistently as before – including some of the eastern empire’s best emperors after the fall of the western empire, notably the Justinian dynasty.

When Claudius became emperor upon the death of his predecessor (by assassination, possibly by a conspiracy involving Claudius himself and even Aurelian), the empire was at the height of the Crisis of the Third Century – invaded by barbarians, and worse, divided into three parts with de facto separate states of the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires in west and east respectively, albeit the latter not quite in open defiance of the empire at the outset of his reign.

The most serious barbarian invasion was an invasion of Illyricum and Pannonia by the Goths – against whom Claudius won his greatest victory, “one of the greatest in the history of Roman arms”.

“At the Battle of Naissus, Claudius and his legions routed a huge Gothic army. Together with his cavalry commander, the future Emperor Aurelian, the Romans took thousands of prisoners and destroyed the Gothic cavalry as a force. The victory earned Claudius his surname of “Gothicus” (conqueror of the Goths). The Goths were soon driven back across the Danube River by Aurelian, and nearly a century passed before they again posed a serious threat to the empire”.

Being the Crisis of the Third Century, there was of course more than one barbarian invasion to repel. “Around the same time, the Alamanni had crossed the Alps and attacked the empire. Claudius responded quickly, routing the Alamanni at the Battle of Lake Benacus in the late fall of 268, a few months after the Battle of Naissus. For this he was awarded the title of ‘Germanicus Maximus’.”

Claudius then turned on the Gallic Empire, aided by its own internal power struggles – winning serval victories and regaining Hispania as well as the Rhone river valley of Gaul. The Gallic Empire remained in place in most of Gaul as well as Britain, but Claudius had set the stage for its destruction by Aurelian.

All pretty impressive for a reign of less than two years, and Claudius was preparing a campaign against yet another barbarian invasion, by the Vandals in Pannonia – and presumably also had his sights set on a Palmyrene empire that had begun to emerge in open defiance to Rome – when he died from illness.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Pax Romana XI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is, overlooked and underrated except among sources from the eastern Roman empire, who apparently even compared him to their founding figure Constantine – with his reign often looked back on as a golden age and the people of Constantinople shouting “Reign like Marcian!” at the accession of subsequent emperors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(5) PROBUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(276 – 283 AD: 6 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

Usually overlooked among Roman emperors, Probus deserves to be hailed with Aurelian as savior of the empire in the Crisis of the Third Century. Perhaps not quite in the same god tier as Aurelian but in the top tier – or even top ten, as yet another emperor that could arguably be swapped into it.

Aurelian might have reunited and saved the empire, but it may well still have fallen apart without a successor such as Probus at the helm (albeit after a brief interval of ten months or so with two other emperors).

Aurelian was more fundamental but between them they saved the empire – as per the title of the book, “Aurelian and Probus: The Soldier Emperors Who Saved Rome”.

Both are part of the wider so-called Illyrian emperors, hailing from the region of Illyricum or other Danubian provinces as the core of the Roman army, that renewed the Roman empire, most immediately in its third century crisis, but which also were its best emperors for the next three centuries. The Illyrian emperors usually rose to prominence and served with distinction as military commanders in succession – Probus having served under Aurelian (and Aurelian’s predecessors). Indeed, he had reconquered Egypt from Zenobia in Aurelian’s war against the Palmyrene Empire – and it was said that he had “fought with success on almost every frontier of the empire” before he rose to emperor.

Anyway, Aurelian might have defeated the Gallic and Palmyrene empires that had seceded in the western and eastern thirds of the empire respectively, but the Crisis of the Third Century still loomed large in other internal revolts, as well as barbarian invasions of the empire and the enduring threat of the Sassanid Persians.

It was particularly for the latter that Probus had been appointed supreme commander of the east by his imperial predecessor and was in camp in Asia Minor when his troops rallied for him as emperor when that predecessor died. After first defeating his rival claimant (the half-brother of his predecessor), he campaigned west to defeat the Goths along the Danube.

He and his generals then campaigned in Gaul to defeat the barbarians that had invaded the empire – Alemanni, Franks, Burgundians and Lugii (reputedly 400,000 of them and the entire tribe of Lugii were wiped out during his campaigns) – and claiming the titles of Germanicus Maximus and Gothicus Maximus. After defeating the barbarians who had invaded Gaul, he then crossed the Rhine to campaign successfully against the barbarians in their homelands and restore the fortifications of the defensive line constructed by Hadrian between the Rhine and the Danube.

Probus wasn’t done yet – he fought the Vandals at the Danube (including defending his home province of Illyria), his generals defeated the desert nomad Blemmyes in Egypt, and he defeated usurpers or revolts in the west (including, as usual, Britain).

In the meantime, he had also sought to cultivate and extend the army discipline restored by Aurelian, above all by his principle of never allowing soldiers to be idle and engaging them in civic works when not in combat (planting vineyards, repairing bridges or canals, draining marshes and so on). He did something similar by a tribute of manpower from vanquished barbarian tribes, establishing the precedent of settling barbarians within the empire as auxiliaries on a large scale, albeit a precedent that was not as successful under subsequent emperors.

It was reputed that he even lamented the necessity of a standing army, anticipating a future in which Rome’s enemies had been defeated so that its army could be scaled back – but first he had to deal with the Sassanids and was preparing for an eastern campaign against them when he was assassinated, with some sources attributing it to disgruntled soldiers rebelling against their orders for civic works or overhearing his laments.

“Probus was an active and successful general as well as a conscientious administrator, and in his reign of six years he secured prosperity for the inner provinces while withstanding repeated invasions of barbarian tribes on almost every sector of the frontier. After repelling the foreign enemies of the empire, Probus was forced to handle several internal revolts but demonstrated leniency and moderation to the vanquished wherever possible.”

He was also diligent in respecting the authority of the Senate and hailed by Gibbon as “the last of the benevolent constitutional emperors of Rome” – with the Senate never again playing an active role in the management of the empire under his successors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“His reign was the most peaceful in the entire history of the Principate” – which I would hazard to guess makes it the most peaceful in the entire history of the classical empire, given how much less peaceful the Dominate was. If it is to be characterized as inactivity, then it is inactivity from peace and good management requiring no action on his part, as opposed to the more disastrous supine inactivity from cowardice or incompetence we see from bad emperors – looking at you, Theodosian dynasty.

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

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

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

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

Based, indeed.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(3) DOMITIAN –

FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(81 – 96 AD: 15 YEARS 4 DAYS)

Modern historians have increasingly seen Domitian’s reign as laying the foundation of the golden age that immediately succeeded him (or at least did via a brief interregnum via Nerva).

His reign was distinctive or even unique for its economic success, above all in revaluing the currency, maintaining it through his reign by financial prudence and “rigorous taxation policy”. In his ranking of emperors, Spectrum asserts that that he “was the only emperor to have actually fixed the problem of inflation, the only one”. I’m not sure that he was as unique in that respect as Spectrum asserts but at very least it was exceedingly rare and he certainly “maintained the Roman currency at a standard it would never again achieve”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literally with respect to the currency

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

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

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

And yes – you’ve read that title right. For those who followed my Top 10 Best & Worst Roman Emperors, I’ve decided to swap Vespasian for Domitian (and the Flavian Dynasty as second best imperial dynasty) in sixth place in my Top 10 Best Roman Emperors.

I stand by my ‘heterodox’ revisionism of Domitian as a good emperor, contrary to the more ‘orthodox’ view of him as a bad emperor or even one of the worst, echoing senatorial hostility toward him as a ‘cruel tyrant’ through the ages. As I noted, fortunately modern historians have revised or reassessed him in a more positive light. Hence I will retain him in my special mentions for good emperors – in a similar vein to Tiberius, who is often also portrayed negatively.

My original placement of Domitian reflected that in some ways he was better than his father – a longer reign for one thing (indeed, longer than any reign since Tiberius) and his distinctive or even unique achievement in revaluing the currency, not devaluing it. While Vespasian was good in his economic management (with Domitian presumably inheriting that sound economic sense), he still slightly devalued the currency.

However, I’ve decided to rank Vespasian over Domitian. One reason is that whereas Domitian inherited the throne through his father and brother, Vespasian did after all found the dynasty, having to advance his imperial claim in a civil war of succession.

More fundamentally, while one doesn’t have to agree with the senatorial hostility towards Domitian (and its viewpoint of him as a ‘bad’ emperor), one does have to recognize it. Like it or not, dealing with the Senate and senatorial class was a fact of political life in Rome, at least the Rome of the principate – and hence managing relations with the Senate was an important part of being emperor. The diplomacy and tact of Augustus towards the Senate is part of what made him so acclaimed, not least by the Senate who loved him for it – as they did Vespasian and his other son Titus. The mutual antagonism and hostility between the Senate and Domitian ultimately saw him assassinated, which might well have seen the empire in another civil war for imperial succession but for Nerva.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAXIMUS:
No imperial victory titles as such, but he did have a triumph with his two sons for their victory in the First Roman-Jewish War.

DEIFICATION:
Yes, he turned into a god

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON:
Spectrum initially omitted Vespasian from his rankings, but did a supplementary video stating he would have ranked Vespasian eleventh out of all emperors before 395