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

(6) BEST: MARCUS AURELIUS –

NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(161 – 180 AD: 19 YEARS 10 DAYS)

Best known as the Stoic philosopher-emperor and for his Meditations, lending him an aura that sees him as one of the best known Roman emperors in popular culture and public consciousness, as well as one of the best. It’s a rare list of top Roman emperors that does not include him.

And I’m not here to argue otherwise. He was the last of the line nominated as the Five Good Emperors (in what is often styled as the Nerva-Antonine dynasty or perhaps more aptly the Trajanic-Antonine dynasty) , last emperor of Rome’s golden age and victor of the Marcommanic Wars – the most serious incursion into the empire and Italy itself for over two centuries.

The Marcomannic Wars were not the first threat to the empire he had to face – once again the Roman Empire faced the usual tag team of Persians and Germans, fighting the Roman-Parthian War of 161-166 AD with a revitalized Parthian Empire and a rebellious kingdom of Armenia that usually went hand in hand with any conflict with Persia.

The Romans won, with Marcus taking the title Parthicus Maximus – although it was primarily his adoptive brother and co-emperor Lucius Verus and the latter’s generals that had led the campaigns.

However, the Roman-Parthian War also brought something else – the Antonine Plague, originating in Mesopotamia and extending throughout most of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, from 165 AD to 180 AD, estimated to have killed about 10% of the empire’s population but which was particularly destructive to its army.

Ancient chroniclers depicted the impact of the plague on the army as one that saw it “reduced almost to extinction”, which compounded the impact of stripping legions from the Rhine or Danube for the war against Parthia and opened the empire up to the Marcomannic Wars. Marcus Aurelius led the Roman forces against the various invading German tribes through 166 AD to 180 AD, successfully repelling their invasions and restoring the borders of the empire (complicated by the revolt of a major usurper, Avidius Cassius in the eastern empire in 175 AD).

The death of Marcus Aurelius marked the end of Rome’s golden age – or as Roman historian Cassius Dio wrote, the point at which “our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust”. Most of that was of course Marcus Aurelius’ heir and successor to the empire, his son Commodus – who remains something of a black mark on Marcus Aurelius.

How much blame fairly falls on Marcus Aurelius for his son’s character is another matter, as well as what realistic prospects there were for some alternative succession without civil war, but it was probably best summed up by writer Iain King – that the emperor’s “stoic philosophy – which is about self-restraint, duty, and respect for others – was so abjectly abandoned by the imperial line he anointed on his death”.

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

MAXIMUS:

Relatively modest with titles of Armeniacus, Medicus, Germanicus, and Sarmaticus – went all maximus for Parthicus Maximus.

DEIFIED:

Of course – also virtually a stoic saint!

EMPIRE SAVER:

Yes – I’m giving him this one for the Marcomannic Wars

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT

One of the five chad emperors.

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(7) BEST: 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 the saviors of the empire in the Crisis of the Third Century – one of “the soldier emperors who saved Rome”. Although Aurelian got the empire through the worst of the third century, the empire may well still have fallen apart under the onslaught of new invasions and revolts without an emperor such as Probus at the helm.

Probus was one of 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 – indeed, Probus had reconquered Egypt from Zenobia in Aurelian’s war against the breakaway Palmyrene Empire – and it was said that he had “fought with success on almost every frontier of the empire” before he rose to emperor.

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 Tacitus and was in camp in Asia Minor when his troops rallied for him as emperor when Tacitus died. After first defeating his rival claimant Florianus (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’s discipline, above all by his principle of never allowing soldiers to be idle and engaging them in civic works to reconstruct the empire 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 or soldiers, anticipating a future in which Rome’s enemies had been defeated so that its army would not be necessary – 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.

MAXIMUS

Gothicus Maximus and Germanics Maximus – he celebrated a triumph in Rome in 281.

DEIFICATION OR DAMNATION

Deified!

EMPIRE-SAVER

The Illyrians saved the empire!

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Damn right – with Probus as chad in the prelude to the Tetrarchy

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(8) BEST: DIOCLETIAN –

NON-DYNASTIC / TETRARCHY

(284 – 305 AD: 20 YEARS 5 MONTHS 11 DAYS)

Dominus of the Dominate – Diocletian ended the Crisis of the Third Century and stabilized the empire, instituting what has been called the Dominate, as opposed to the Principate founded by Augustus, via the system of government for which he is best known, the Tetrarchy.

“It is perhaps Diocletian’s greatest achievement that he reigned twenty-one years and then abdicated voluntarily and spent the remaining years of his life in peaceful retirement.”

That was a rare achievement for emperors in the third and fourth century – few emperors died naturally with most dying violently. He was also the first emperor to abdicate voluntarily to peaceful retirement, from which he could not be coaxed back, growing cabbages that have become the stuff of legend.

“If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn’t dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed.”

That people sought to coax him back as emperor suggests something of a mixed quality to his reign that was summed up by the Youtuber Spectrum (who also ranked him in eighth place) – “the dude who tried to fix all the issues of the empire and to be honest kind of failed”.

His pet Tetrarchy failed when he wasn’t in it to hold the hands of his co-emperors – and of course it also inherently involved the concept of the division of the empire that would ultimately become permanent between its eastern and western halves. As Adrian Goldswothy observed, it meant fewer civil wars in a more muted form of the crisis of the third century, rather than a true return to the lost comparative stability of the first and second centuries.

The less said about his economic policies such as his edicts for price controls the better, as they were often an abject failure, resulting in higher tax burdens, inflation, reduced social mobility and effectively pre-empting feudalism. Diocletian also institutionalized the Roman equivalent of the military-industrial complex and bureaucratic state, although some historians have considered the burden of the latter to be overstated.

And of course, there was his Great Persecution of Christianity, which would ultimately prove to be ineffective and counter-productive, as well as seeing him maligned by subsequent Christian emperors after this persecution had been replaced by tolerance and the favoritism.

Even the Dominate which he instituted moved the style of government, particularly to modern democratic eyes, away from the more senatorial and collegiate style of the Principate, to one that was more authoritarian, autocratic, bureaucratic, and despotic.

However, it was one that served the needs of the empire at the time better than the Principate and continued to do so with modifications until at least into the seventh century.

Above all, it kept the borders of the empire secure under Diocletian and thereafter for almost a century – with Diocletian, who had risen to the throne from humble origins through a distinguished military career, campaigning successfully against Germanic tribes and Sarmatians at the Danube (taking the victory title of Sarmaticus Maximus), a rebellion and usurper in Egypt, and the Sassanids in Persia.

MAXIMUS

O boy – Germanicus Maximus, Sarmaticus Maximus, Persicus Maximus, Britannicus Maximus (suppressing the Carausian Revolt or so-called Britannic Empire), Carpicus Maximus, Armenicus Maximus, Medicus Maximus, and Adiabenicus Maximus. Half of those come from campaigns against the Sassanid Persians – arguably the empire’s best campaigns against the Sassanids, reversing the defeats of the Crisis and securing the empire’s best terms of victory against the Sassanids that would endure for half a century.

DEIFIED AND DAMNED

Well, it was the Dominate after all – divine honors came with the territory. He even called himself Jovius.

However, Christianity has a long memory of its persecutions – there was no formal damnatio memoriae but he was removed from monuments and his memory was diminished under Constantine, both to magnify Constantine himself and because of Constantine’s Christianity.

EMPIRE MAKER

Yes, yes – technically there was only one empire maker as such, but Diocletian qualifies for his Tetrarchy and the Dominate, effectively instituting a new Roman empire from the Crisis of the Third Century.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Dovahhatty does Diocletian right as a chad in the video named for the Tetrarchy – and as the emperor holding the whole thing together despite the deficiencies of his fellow tetrarchs.

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XXVII: Imperial Wrath

(9) BEST: VALENTINIAN –
VALENTINIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE
(364 – 375 AD: 11 YEARS 8 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides – by barbarians. And he will strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger. And they will know his name is…Valentinian

Apologies to Tarantino, although I think Valentinian would have dug Tarantino’s vibe. Certainly I think if any characteristic described Valentinian, it was furious anger, albeit that of the righteous man.

I mean, he literally died of anger – from a stroke yelling at envoys from Germanic tribes for not sticking to peace treaties, although I prefer the Dovahhatty version where Valentinian had his stroke choking them out in pure rage.

It’s not a bad way to go – and who doesn’t secretly yearn for something similar, going out in a blaze of glory at work, yelling at someone who richly deserves it as I rage into, not against, the dying of the light. No? Just me, then?

Valentinian was the last great western emperor, “due to the successful nature of his reign and the rapid decline of the empire after his death” – certainly the last worthy of the title of the Great as he is also known as Valentinian the Great (although I understand that was by a convention that did not so much connote greatness as a term that also effectively translated as the first of his name).

Hell, I’ll say he was the last great emperor in either half of the empire until after 476 AD. Yes – I’m looking at you, Theodosius the so-called Great. I’ll deal with him later but I tend to agree with Dovahhatty who has Theodosius muse to himself “I’m busy thinking how to be horrible at everything and yet still be remembered as ‘great'”. Okay – I don’t quite go that far but you won’t be seeing him on the best or great side of the ledger. Just don’t confuse him with his father and Valentinian’s top general, Theodosius the Elder or ‘Count’ Theodosius (as his military title loosely translates).

And yes – I haven’t forgotten about Majorian. It’s just that Valentinian was the last emperor to campaign beyond the Rhine or indeed secure the borders of the empire against barbarians, as he skilfully and successfully defended against Germanic invasions – to keep the barbarians at the gates

After Valentinian’s death, the barbarians were inside the gates – “the calls are coming from inside the house!”. The Romans weren’t fighting them beyond the borders or even at the borders, but inside the borders, where they were to stay.

After Valentian, it’s depressing that the mark of a good emperor – such as Majorian – was one who fought and defeated the barbarians inside the empire. And that was depressingly rare, literally only a couple of emperors. Even emperors fighting at all were rare, as that was increasingly done by their military leaders – increasingly drawn from the barbarians themselves – who ruled the empire in all but name, although in fairness quite a few of them also fought and defeated barbarians inside the empire, including my favorites Stilicho and Aetius.

Back to Valentinian, it was like the fourth century trying to replay all the greatest hits of the crisis of the third century but Valentinian was having none of it and kicked it all back to the curb – Germanic tribes in Gaul and Germania, the ‘Great Conspiracy’ of rebellion and invaders in Britain, rebellion and usurpers in Africa, and Germanic tribes at the Danube.

You don’t rack up those victory names for nothing. Okay, occasionally emperors did, but not Valentinian – I’ve seen listed for him Germanicus Maximus, Alamanicus Maximus (with the Alamanni as perhaps his favorite punching bag), Francicus Maximus (for the Franks) and Gothicus Maximus.

Sadly, his brother Valens – whom Valentian made his eastern co-emperor – did not quite have the same mettle or military prowess, which is what led to those barbarians inside the gates after a little battle of which you might have heard, the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD.

His sons had even less. So much for the so-called Valentinian dynasty, which saw the empire crumble, albeit not as much as the – shudder – Theodosian dynasty. The only Valentianian dynasty was Valentinian.

Valentinian occasionally has the reputation – among some modern historians as well as contemporaries – as a brute, but he founded schools, as well as providing state-funded orphanages, medical services in Rome’s poorest districts and penalties for infanticide. He was also capable in administration, particularly financial administration – he improved tax collection (including relief for the poor) and was frugal in spending. And unlike his brother Valens, he actually upheld religious tolerance (apart from slapping the odd pagan).

Okay, there’s the story about his two pet bears which he used to execute people, but I’m not sure I believe that. There’s also the story of Valentinian and his wife swinging with Justina, the hottest woman in the Roman Empire, such that he made a law to have Justina as his second wife (and mother of his son Valentinian II). That’s probably as much gossip as the story about the bears but it makes me respect him even more.

MAXIMUS:

As I noted before – Germanicus Maximus, Alamanicus Maximus, Francicus Maximus and Gothicus Maximus.

DEIFIED:

Despite being Christian, the empire still retained its classical paganism and its deification of emperors – so he was deified

EMPIRE SAVER:

One of the last, if not the last, in the classical Roman empire.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Dovahhatty of course has him as a chad – as depicted in my feature image, one of my favorite scenes from the Unbiased History of Rome series – and indeed hails him as the last great western emperor.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: Fall of Rome

(10) BEST: MAJORIAN –

NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS

(457 – 461 AD: 4 YEARS 11 MONTHS 1 DAY)

The last, best hope for the western Roman Empire, but alas it was not to be – although it was enough for him to be one of the historical figures labeled as the “Last of the Romans”.

There were probably emperors who might well have outranked Majorian for a place in my top ten but I just couldn’t resist Majorian for my usual wildcard entry in tenth place. What can I say? I’m a romantic for people fighting against the odds.

I also have a soft spot for stories of so-called lost legions, those left still standing or holding the line beyond the high tide mark of the empire – and Majorian was virtually a lost legion all to himself.

When I first found out about Majorian, it was a revelation. I had assumed that by the time of his reign, the western Roman empire was essentially dead on its feet, still standing only as it was propped up by the German barbarian tribes that had all but conquered it. After all, by 457 AD, Rome had been sacked twice by Visigoths and Vandals respectively, narrowly avoiding a third sack by Attila the Hun. Its emperors had all seemed to be one feeble emperor after another, useless or puppets (or both), as well as less than two decades away from the last such emperor being deposed altogether.

Majorian was having none of that. Seemingly cut from the same cloth as Aurelian two centuries earlier, he strove to pull the empire out of its spiral of doom, defeating all of Rome’s enemies he fought even in that twilight of the western empire.

He had of course come from a distinguished military career, starting and serving under none other than that other legendary last of the Romans, Flavius Aetius, particularly distinguishing himself fighting against the Franks. That saw him rise to the position of magister militum in the western empire, along with Ricimer, a Romanised German general who was increasingly the maker and breaker of emperors in the western empire.

Upon rising to the imperial throne, he defeated another attack by the Vandals on Italy, before setting upon the reconquest of former imperial territory in Gaul and Hispania, defeating the unruly barbarian allies or ‘foederati’ who had overrun that territory and confining them to their areas of settlement – the Visigoths, the Burgundians and the Suebi.

The jewel in the crown of his reconquest was to be the Vandal kingdom, which had conquered the Roman province of Africa – province of Rome’s old enemy Carthage and whose wealth and grain had formerly been the lifeblood of the western Roman empire – for its own, definitely not as subordinate foederati like other barbarian tribes in the empire.

Had he engaged them on the battlefield, one might anticipate that he would have defeated them as he had consistently defeated all his other adversaries (including the Vandals themselves in Italy) – but alas it was not to be. He did not get to engage them in the battlefield at all, as the fleet he had painstakingly built was scattered or destroyed, usually attributed to treachery paid by the Vandals.

Defeat as they say is an orphan – and Majorian soon found himself orphaned by history, betrayed and assassinated by his former colleague Ricimer.

In fairness, it is not clear whether Majorian could have decisively reversed or stalled the fall of the western empire, although surely his position would have been much improved by the reconquest of Africa.

It is tempting to imagine counterfactuals as to what he could have achieved if he had been able reconquer Africa. Or if the Leonid dynasty in the eastern empire, which pretty much sat around being useless until after 476 AD when emperors such as Zeno and Anastasius ascended the throne, had decided to lend its fleet to the campaign by Majorian rather doing so on its own a few years later for its chosen emperor Anthemius, resulting in disastrous defeat and near bankruptcy for itself. One can imagine that in those circumstances the western Roman empire may well have endured, perhaps long enough to when the eastern empire under Justinian lent itself in earnest to reclaiming or restoring its western half.

However, the precariousness of Majorian’s position and achievements are perhaps demonstrated by the extent to which his fleet could be exposed to treachery paid by the Vandals, or he himself could be deposed and assassinated by Ricimer – not to mention how quickly his reconquests unravelled afterwards.

Still, I tend to share the opinion of Edward Gibbon, who wrote that Majorian “presents the welcome discovery of a great and heroic character, such as sometimes arise, in a degenerate age, to vindicate the honour of the human species”.

MAXIMUS

I’m not sure the western Roman empire had victory titles or triumphs at that late stage, but he damn well deserved them for his victories over the Franks and Alamanni prior to his accession to the throne, and over the Vandals (in Italy), Visigoths, Burgundians and Suebi as emperor.

DEIFIED

With Christianity as the official religion of the empire, the Romans had ceased deifying emperors, but perhaps literary deification as the Last of the Romans

EMPIRE SAVER

Sadly, almost but not quite. At least saved it for a few more years.

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT?

Dovahhatty rightly ranks him as a chad, even including that Gibbon quote.