Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(19) THEODOSIUS –
THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE – BRIEFLY WHOLE EMPIRE)
379 – 395 AD (15 YEARS 11 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

I know Dovahhatty does something of a hatchet job on Theodosius but I tend to agree with his caption for Theodosius – “I’m busy thinking how to be horrible at everything and yet still be remembered as ‘great'” (in marked contrast to Dovahhatty’s admiration for Theodosius’ father, Theodosius the Elder or Count Theodosius, with which I also tend to agree).

And yes – my understanding is that “great” was used in Roman imperial titles essentially to mean the first of his name as emperor, particularly to distinguish them from other emperors of the same name – so you have Valentinian and Constantine as the Great, but also Theodosius and Leo.

And yes – similarly to my Pertinax-Thrax line separating good from bad emperors, we come to the first of two emperors right on my dividing line separating bad from good emperors.

I anticipate that it will be controversial ranking both emperors as ‘bad’, albeit right on the threshold of being decent – as others might rank them as ‘good’, indeed probably much higher than either Pertinax or Maximinus Thrax, even if their reigns had mixed or problematic aspects.

So back to Theodosius, although Dovahhatty takes a lot of historical license overstating the case against him, it coincides with what I’ve always thought of him.

And I just can’t forgive him for inflicting the worst dynasty on the classical empire – the Theodosian dynasty. And inflict it he did – immediately in the form of his two sons as imperial heirs, Arcadius on the eastern empire and Honorius on the western empire, ensuring the permanent division of the empire and the fall of the latter.  Theodosius was – briefly – the last emperor of the whole empire, both western and eastern halves.

Let’s start with where Dovahhatty overstates his case – the western emperor Gratian proclaimed Theodosius as eastern emperor during the ongoing Gothic War of 376-382 AD in the wake of the disastrous defeat and death of the preceding eastern emperor Valens in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD.

Theodosius had few good options as the new eastern emperor essentially thrown a hospital pass by Gratian. The forces available to the eastern empire were too depleted, not least by the losses at Adrianople, to drive the Goths out – and although Theodosius was able to ultimately win the Gothic War and pacify the Goths, he had to settle for, well, settling the Goths within the empire.

As Dovahhatty acidly observes with Theodosius “completely caving in”, “the Goths were allowed to settle inside the empire, under their own leaders…fully armed and exempt from ever being Romanized and thus civilized, a complete betrayal of Rome’s oldest tradition”.

One doesn’t have to go quite so far as that to acknowledge that “although his pacification of the Goths secured peace for the Empire during his lifetime, their status as an autonomous entity within Roman borders caused problems for succeeding emperors”. From here on, no longer were the barbarians at the gates, they were inside the gates.

In other words, it was the institution of the foederati system on an unprecedented scale – where the Romans settled Germanic tribes as effectively independent states within the empire on the basis of a treaty or foedus to lend military forces to the empire. Of course, the Germanic tribes had already become the lifeblood for recruitment to the Roman army and even as its commanders, but the foederati represented a significant downgrade, not least in territory and taxation revenue lost within the empire.

It may have been the best of the bad options at the time but one can’t help feeling that Theodosius was kicking the can down the road – and ironically it was the western empire that had to pick it up next century, even though Theodosius settled the Goths within the eastern empire. In this – kicking the can down the road for the empire to pick up later, even if it was the best of bad options – Theodosius resembled the other emperor holding my dividing line between bad and good emperors. For the other emperor, picking up that can came with the Crisis of the Third Century – with Theodosius, it came with no less than the fall of the western empire.

However, as I said, Theodosius had few good choices. The western empire under Gratian provided little assistance, something that would rebound to bite the western empire back, particularly when the Visigoths moved from the eastern to the western empire. Theodosius had to resort to desperate recruiting measures to fill the ranks of the army – conscripting farmers and miners, as well as Germanic auxiliaries including the Goths themselves, who after the settlement (and to some extent before in the form of deserters and mercenaries) were to be one of the few reliable sources of manpower for the army. Loyal and competent Germanic officers, typically the Frankish officers like Arbogast that became the force behind the throne in the western empire in the fourth century (as the Goths themselves were to become in the eastern empire in the fifth), helped turn the tide of the Gothic War to force the Goths into a treaty.

And thereafter, the Visigoths were arguably among the more reliable Germanic foederati or allies for the Romans, at least for their crucial role in helping Aetius win against the Huns in Gaul. More immediately for Theodosius, “by the start of his reign, much of Eastern Roman Empire’s military was devastated and Goths–who were more nuanced than savage barbarians and too divided to serve under a single force in real-life–were (the) only military available in such short notice”.

It’s just that Theodosius seemed set upon achieving the worst of all worlds – with a policy seemingly designed for an alliance with the Goths but alienating them instead, particularly the Visigoths and the Visigothic leader Alaric, who would then descend upon the western empire and sack Rome.

It is arguable that an effective alliance with the Goths might have had a similar result to the revival of Rome under the Illyrian emperors – Theodosius even settled the Visigoths in Illyria.

However, Theodosius exploited the Visigoths under Alaric as the Roman equivalent of cannon fodder – legion fodder – for expendable casualties in the Battle of the Frigidus against a western usurper, the puppet of his former Frankish commander Arbogast, whom he himself had appointed as supreme military commander of the western empire. “Despite losing many thousands of his men”, Alaric “received little recognition from Rome and left the Roman army disappointed” – subsequently, “as the leader of the only effective field force remaining in the Balkans, he sought Roman legitimacy, never quite achieving a position acceptable to himself or to the Roman authorities”.

The Battle of the Frigidus prompts to mind the other major criticism of Theodosius – that he didn’t just simply foist his two useless sons on each half of the empire, but that he did so “defending his own dynastic interests at the cost of two civil wars”, intervening in the western empire on two occasions.

The first was in 388 when Magnus Maximus usurped the western emperor Gratian. Granted on that occasion he installed Gratian’s half-brother Valentinian II as western emperor, but essentially as puppet of Arbogast – and probably mere placeholder for his own son Honorius.

The second was in 394 when Arbogast proclaimed Eugenius as emperor after the (suspicious) death of Valentinian II, resulting in the decisive Battle of the Frigidus and Theodosius becoming emperor of the whole empire, to be succeeded by his two sons.

Both civil wars were disastrous for the empire, particularly the latter and particularly for the western empire, severely depleting the manpower of the army to repel or resist barbarian invaders thereafter.

On top of that, there’s the controversy of the infamous Massacre of Thessalonica, where civilians were killed by Roman troops – or a “Gothic horde” as Dovahhatty characterized them, although the sources are not clear as to this or the role of Theodosius in the massacre.

There’s also the controversy of him upholding Nicene Christianity as the official religion stamping out Arian Christians and pagans, although again his role in doing so is not clear and may well be overstated.

However, there remains his damned dynasty – “His two sons proved weak and incapable rulers, and they presided over a period of foreign invasions and court intrigues, which heavily weakened the empire”. And it didn’t stop there as his descendants would rule the empire for the next six decades, ensuring its enduring division – and the fall of the western empire.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Really, I’ve been clear about my agreement with Dovahhatty from the outset of this feature – while he does overstate the case against Theodosius, I tend to agree with his caption about Theodosius thinking how to be horrible at everything and still be remembered as great. I particularly like how he has Theodosius grovelling to Goths (and the Church), much to the disdain of Stilicho.

RATING: 3 STARS***
C-TIER (MID-TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKER

Theodosius II (left) and Leo (right) in Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: The Fall of Rome

(18) THEODOSIUS II & LEO
(THEODOSIUS II – THEODOSIAN DYNASTY 408-450 AD: 42 YEARS 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)
(LEO: LEONID DYNASTY 457-474 AD: 16 YEARS 11 MONTHS 11 DAYS)

The emperors who presided over the eastern empire for most of the period the western empire crumbled and fell – certainly the emperors with the longest reigns in that period.

That’s perhaps not coincidental in the case of Theodosius II, who succeeded his father Arcadius as eastern emperor. In fairness, while not as weak and useless as the others born into the Theodosian dynasty (as opposed to those who married into it, Constantius III and Marcian), he was still mostly weak and useless, albeit better than his father, sleepwalking his way through as eastern emperor while the western empire fell apart.

That impressively long reign becomes a lot less impressive than it seems as he became sole emperor as a child of 7 years with the death of his father in 408 (although he had been previously been proclaimed co-emperor as an infant of 9 months). Fortunately, he also inherited the praetorian prefect Anthemius from his father, who administered the government and supervised the construction of Constantinople’s defensive walls named for the emperor, the Theodosian Walls.

Unfortunately, Anthemius disappears from the historical record in 414, consistent perhaps with being dismissed, retiring or dying of natural causes. Thereafter, Theodosius was constantly pushed around by his sister Pulcheria, his wife Aelia Eudocia (after his marriage in 421), and various literal court eunuchs as well as the Germanic military commanders of the empire.

Hence resulting in his passive imperial administration. The one time he actively intervened in the western empire was perhaps the one time he should have left things well alone – to reclaim the western imperial throne from Joannes after the death of Honorius in 423 for the even more weak and useless member of his dynasty, Valentinian III,

In fairness, the eastern empire had its hands full on the usual two fronts – in the east with the Sassanid Persians and in the west with the Huns, which among other things preempted a more substantial intervention in the western empire sending an expeditionary force to reclaim north Africa when it fell to the Vandals.

Theodosius did best in the war with the Sassanids in 421-422 – that is, ending up with nothing, a stalemate with no change to the status quo between them. The Romans were forced to make peace with the Sassanids to deal with the Huns – who menaced Constantinople as well as raiding throughout the Balkans and destroying two Roman armies during his reign. Theodosius mostly adopted the policy of throwing money at them in tribute until they went away again, paying increasingly exorbitant amounts in gold as tribute.

Theodosius died in 450 from falling off his horse – he was succeeded by Marcian, who married into the dynasty by marrying Pulcheria and was far more robust towards the Huns, promptly stopping payments of tribute and taking effective military action against them instead.

Leo on the other hand may not have seemed too auspicious upon being proclaimed emperor after Marcian, a low ranking military officer chosen by Aspar, the Germanic supreme military commander who was the real power behind the throne similar to Ricimer in the western empire and who had also elevated Marcian to emperor.

No doubt Aspar intended Leo to be a puppet emperor, but instead Leo became increasingly independent and out-maneuvred Aspar, culminating in the assassination of Aspar (and others) in 471 and the end of the Gothic or Germanic domination of the eastern empire – earning Leo the title of Leo the Butcher.

Leo also took more robust if perhaps mistimed action to save the western empire – mistimed in that he did not do so during the reign of Majorian, the western emperor with the best prospects of reviving the western empire, but afterwards when there was little real prospect of saving it, notwithstanding Leo’s support for his imperial candidates Anthemius and Julius Nepos.

Indeed, Leo might well have crossed the line into being ranked as good emperor but for the disastrous defeat of his naval expedition to reclaim north Africa from the Vandals in the Battle of Cape Bon in 468 AD – a defeat that might well be ranked with the defeat of Valens in the Battle of Adrianople, even if the defeat was primarily the fault of the expedition’s commander and Leo’s brother-in-law Basiliscus.

Sadly, that’s got to cost him, not least in its consequence for both halves of the empire – completely dashing any last hopes for the western empire and effectively bankrupting the eastern empire for the balance of his reign and beyond.

Leo died of dysentry in 474 AD, to be succeeded by emperors in brief and quick succession – his grandson Leo II, Zeno, that slime Basiliscus, and Zeno again for a longer reign, just in time for the last western emperor to be deposed and the proverbial fall of the Roman Empire.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT

Dovahhatty depicts them both as wojaks- with Theodosius II the more world-weary style of wojak and Leo more energetic, helped by his beard.

Dovahhatty also depicts them in reasonably favorable terms, reflecting that they at least preserved the eastern empire, even if they failed in other respects – above all preserving the western empire, although to be fair that was not their primary responsibility and was probably doomed by the time they actively reigned anyway, especially Leo. Dovahhatty seems to omit one of the most favorable aspects of Leo’s reign – eliminating Aspar and the Gothic domination of the eastern court.

For all these reasons, I’ve decided to rank Theodosius II and especially Leo as C-tier or mid-tier, coming very close to the dividing line between bad and good emperors, although their respective failures just keep them on the bad side of the dividing line.

RATING: 3 STARS**
C-TIER (MID TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKERS

Constans (left) and Gratian (right) in Dovahatty’s Unbiased History of Rome XVII & XVIII: Imperial Wrath & Barbarians at the Gates respectively

(17) CONSTANS & GRATIAN
(CONSTANS – CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY 337-350 AD: 12 YEARS 4 MONTHS)
(GRATIAN – VALENTINIAN DYNASTY 375-383: 7 YEARS 9 MONTHS 8 DAYS)

And now we come to two emperors with uncannily similar reigns, despite being separated by forty years or so as well as from successive dynasties.

Both succeeded great emperors (for whom the dynasties were named) as their sons, both began as child emperors in circumstances where others had designs on them as puppets, both were western emperors who were reasonably robust in defending the western empire, and both were usurped and killed when their legions deserted them due to them ‘favoring’ their barbarian soldiers in suggestive ways. Also both courted religious controversy while favoring Nicene Christianity.

Constans was one of the three sons of Constantine who each inherited a third of the empire as co-emperors from their father after his death in 337. Constans inherited the middle third of the empire including Italy and Rome itself, but as ward of his older brother Constantine II because he was a teen at the time.

As we saw in my Top 10 Worst Roman Emperors. Constantine II tried to stand over his younger brother, until unsuccessfully attempting to usurp Constans altogether when Constans came of age and asserted his independence, being killed when ambushed – by the advance forces of Constans, not even the main force.

Constans’ reign commenced in reasonably robust fashion. He had defeated the Sarmatians in a campaign as a teenage co-emperor before defeating the attempt of his brother Constantine II to usurp him, adding the latter’s realm of the western part of the empire to his own of the middle part of the empire around Italy. He then ruled the west in energetic fashion, campaigning successfully against the Franks and visiting Britain, probably also on campaign – the last emperor to do so in the classical empire (or at all, even counting the eastern empire, apart from Manuel II Palaiologos).

Relations with his remaining brother, Constantius II as his co-emperor in the eastern empire, were somewhat strained – including by religious tension as Constans favored Nicene Christianity over the Arian Christianity of Constantius. Constans also banned pagan sacrifices.

And then things went wrong, as he was successfully usurped and killed for being entirely too gay by a complete outsider to the Constantian dynasty, Magnentius, such that he had to be avenged by Constantius II. No, really – the surviving sources accuse him of misrule and homosexuality, albeit probably influenced by the propaganda of Magnentius’ faction.

In particular, he developed a reputation for cruelty and misrule as well as that he “indulged in great vices” and scandalous behaviour, unduly favoring the handsome barbarian members of his, ahem, select bodyguard, while also being accused of gratifying his tastes with young barbarian hostages.

How much of that is true is another matter, but certainly something went very wrong for his lack of popularity and for his legions to desert him, such that he found himself without any support beyond his immediate household when faced with the imperial claim made by the general Magnentius and had to flee for his life. He attempted to flee to Hispania but was cornered and killed seeking sanctuary in a temple in Gaul in a location named for his grandmother Helena, thus fulfilling an alleged prophecy that he would die in his grandmother’s arms.

Gratian was one of two sons of Valentinian, becoming senior emperor at the age of sixteen when his father died in 375. I’ve already included his half-brother Valentinian II in a previous special mention, but Valentinian II was younger still as a mere child and was only co-emperor in name only over essentially the same middle provinces Constans had initially ruled, with Gratian ruling the western empire himself, with their uncle Valens ruling as eastern emperor.

I say ruling the western empire himself, but his rule was effectively sought to be puppeted by his tutor Ausonius, who became quaester and along with Merobaudes, the western empire’s magister militum of Frankish origin, the real power behind the throne. They prevented Gratian from travelling much, partly to conceal his youth from the populace.

And then disaster struck in 378 AD, with none other than the defeat and death of Valens at the notorious Battle of Adrianople against the Goths – albeit through no fault of Gratian’s, who had been en route to reinforce Valens with his western army before Valens had jumped the gun to fight the Goths without western reinforcements. Gratian had also been delayed by fighting with the barbarian Alans that had also invaded the Balkans – note that tribal name because it pops up again in his downfall. It was also alleged that Merobaudes had delayed or withheld troops, although the latter seems to have been reasonably necessary for a victory over the Alamanni taking advantage of troop withdrawals to invade Gaul.

The defeat and death of Valens left Gratian as sole emperor of the whole empire, but with the Goths now rampaging unchecked in the Balkans, Gratian decided he needed an eastern co-emperor and appointed Theodosius, thereby starting the rot of the Theodosian dynasty that saw in the fall of the empire.

Jointly with Theododius, Gratian touted Nicene Christianity as the only official religion – but down on the surviving remnants of paganism more forcefully than Theodosius, issuing edicts closing down pagan temples or shrines and confiscating their funds for the treasury, above all removing the statue of the winged goddess of Victory from the Senate.

In the meantime, Gratian had won victories against invading barbarian tribes of Alamanni or Goths in 380 AD, but again found himself at war with the Alamanni in 383 AD. During that war, he alienated his army by his favoritism to his barbarian Alan deserters whom he had made his bodyguard. I told you to remember that name – although I can’t help thinking of it as some barbarian guy named Alan. He was also accused of keeping bad company (Alan!) and neglecting the affairs of state to have fun.

And so his army deserted him to the usurper Magnus Maximus, who had raised the standard of revolt in Britain and invaded Gaul to advance a competing imperial claim. Similarly to Constans, Gratian was forced to flee, only to be pursued and killed in Gaul by forces loyal to Magnus Maximus, leaving his half-brother Valentinian II as sole western emperor in contest with Magnus Maximus – as we saw when I ranked Valentinian III among these special mentions.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Dovahhatty obviously plays into the historical sources for Constans being usurped as entirely too gay – with a rare departure from the standard chad-wojak-virgin triumvirate and instead featuring Constans as the stylized perfect girlfriend meme (with captions to match). His father Constantine even confuses him for a daughter.

Gratian fares better as a wojak – but of course far short of his chad father Valentinian.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(16) VALENS –
VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE
(364-378 AD: 14 YEARS 4 MONTHS 12 DAYS)

Emperor Valens – the name synonymous with the greatest defeat of the Roman Empire, the one that heralded the proverbial Fall of the Roman Empire, the Battle of Adrianople against the Goths in 378 AD. Gothicus Minimus, amirite?

As such, it might be surprising that I rank him so well, albeit still among special mentions for ‘bad’ emperors but towards the tail end or dividing line between good and bad emperors. To be honest, I did consider him ranking him worse – even perhaps in the top ten worst emperors – but ultimately considered that not to be a fair ranking.

For one thing, it seemed that there were patently worse emperors. For another, it seemed to rank his defeat and death at the Battle of Adrianople, as catastrophic at it was for the empire, disproportionately against his whole reign, although it obviously had to cost him a ranking among the ‘good’ emperors.

After all, look at the length of that reign – over fourteen years, which is pretty impressive among Roman emperors. What’s more, he “continually faced threats both external and internal” during that reign.

Near the outset of his reign, he faced serious insurrection in the form of the usurper Procopius, which initially seemed so dire that Valens almost succumbed to despair, considering abdication or even suicide, before rallying to defeat the usurper.

That left the external threats, which were bad enough as characteristically the eastern empire faced them on two fronts – the Goths in the west and the perennial Persians in the east, as well as additional conflicts with the Saracens and the Isaurians.

For most of his reign, Valens was focused on the threat from the Sassanid Persians in the east. Valens actually bested the Goths in his first Gothic War from 367-368 AD, taking the title Gothicus Maximus, but was happy to come to moderate terms of peace to focus on campaigning against the Sassanids and other eastern conflicts.

Which brings us to the second Gothic War from 376 AD and that disastrous defeat in the Battle of Adrianople. Although Valens made the decision to settle select Goths – those led by Fritigern – in the empire as the Huns advanced, no doubt prompted by their potential manpower for the army, he was in the east at the time and wasn’t responsible for the mismanagement of the settlement or extortion of food prompting revolt by the Goths. That was the fault of corrupt Roman officials.

So now Valens had to deal with the mess mostly made by others, returning from the east to campaign against the Goths. And yes – he then proceeded to make mistakes, foremost among them not awaiting the reinforcements from the western empire under Gratian, although I understand he may have been misled by low estimates of the strength of the Goths.

He continued to compound his mistakes with poor tactics leading up to the critical battle, although I understand some of those were the product of advisors or units acting prematurely, but even then might have pulled off a victory or at least avoided defeat but for good luck and timing on the Gothic side with the surprise arrival of the Gothic cavalry.

Or yes – had he been a better general or military commander, such as his brother Valentinian. Unfortunately, he was mediocre. “Utterly undistinguished” as historian A.H.M. Jones characterized him – he “possessed no military ability”. Historian J.B. Bury was even more caustic about the Battle of Adrianople – “a disaster and disgrace that need not have occurred”.

So you can’t get past the role of Valens in leading the empire to defeat at the Battle of Adrianople – “to have died in so inglorious a battle has thus come to be regarded as the nadir of an unfortunate career”.

“This is especially true because of the profound consequences of Valens’ defeat. Adrianople spelled the beginning of the end for Roman territorial integrity in the late Empire and this fact was recognized even by contemporaries”.

However, even critics such as Jones who characterized him as “utterly undistinguished” conceded he was a “conscientious and capable administrator”, reforming the currency with his brother Valentinian and relieving the oppressive burden of taxation on the population – as well as building the Aqueduct of Valens in Constantinople, longer than any in Rome. In religious matters, he favored compromise between Nicene Christianity and other sects, as well as interfering little in the affairs of pagans.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Another emperor best depicted as a wojak – falling short of his chad brother Valentinian…but Dovahhatty obviously has enough sympathy for him not to depict him as virgin, as opposed to his advisors on the eve of the Battle of Adrianople. Speaking of that battle, it’s one of my favorite animated sequences in the series – and the depiction of Valens going from smug victory to shock at the arrival of the Goth cavalry revealed by a flash of lightning is priceless.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(15) JOVIAN –
USUALLY THROWN IN AS CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY BUT REALLY NON-DYNASTIC
(363 – 364 AD: 7 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

The archetypal brief Crisis of the Third Century emperors prompt to mind the similarly brief reign of Jovian – although he really is in a category of his own, whose brief reign was seen as a bit of a joke. It wasn’t really his fault – all he did was have defeat handed to him from his predecessor and then die.

That predecessor was Julian, killed in battle against the Sassanid Persians. Jovian, a member of the imperial bodyguard who had accompanied Julian on campaign, was proclaimed emperor by the troops. With the army trapped from crossing the Tigris River back to the empire, he had no choice but to sue for peace on humiliating terms in a treaty that was widely seen as a disgrace by the Romans.

He spent his brief reign – albeit as the last emperor to rule the whole empire during his entire reign – travelling back to Constantinople and answering petitions about doctrinal issues by Christian bishops, Julian’s pagan revival now effectively reversed by Jovian as Christian emperor.

He died as yet another emperor who never set foot in Rome – his death attributed to breathing poisonous fumes from his newly painted bedchamber heated by a brazier, which sounds suspiciously like a cover for assassination (but perhaps just crazy enough to be a genuine accident – it is after all a lot subtler than the usual assassin’s sword in the back). He was succeeded by Valentinian as western emperor and Valens as eastern emperor.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yet another emperor perfectly encapsulated as wojak – otherwise barely registers except as historical footnote.

RATING: 2 STAR**
D-TIER (LOW TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(14) 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 from worst to best 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 – instead dying horribly of disease.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yeah – these guys were a bunch of wojaks, so Dovahhatty depicts them as such. Except Galerius and Maximinus II – he depicted them as that bear meme character.

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

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