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

(4) WORST: HONORIUS –

THEODOSIAN DYNASTY

(395 – 423 AD AD: 28 YEARS 6 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

Chicken boy.

Dovahhatty summed him up best – “Honorius continued on living as he always had, laying around, babbling like an idiot as the world around him fell apart, but for one exception. One day Honorius turned it all around and decided, for once, to do the best possible thing he could do for the empire and died, after ruling Rome for a godawful thirty years.”

Getting up there as candidate for the worst Roman emperor ever, although you could easily shuffle him with Valentinian III – a.k.a Honorius II – for that spot, as they are so uncannily similar as to be interchangeable. I know I said it before for Valentinian III but it’s worth saying again for Honorius – each was a model of supine inactivity as the empire crumbled, except for betraying the loyal subordinate who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back, as well as each with one of the two notorious sacks of Rome following shortly afterwards. Between the two of them and their inexplicably long reigns, almost 60 years in combination, they broke the western Roman empire and presided over its fall. It’s like the Roman Empire cloned its crappiest emperor, just so it could have him reign twice to ensure its own fall.

Now I have ranked Honorius as worse than Valentinian III as Honorius came first and you know how it is for the diminishing returns of sequels – Valentinian III hit all the same beats and even tried to have some new twists but it just wasn’t up to the original. Less flippantly, Valentinian III inherited the wreckage of the western empire from Honorius – in particular, the barbarians firmly ensconced within the empire as they had not been before Honorius. Not that Valentinian III would do or was ever going to do anything but wreck it further.

In the case of Honorius, the loyal subordinate was his general Stilicho, who had also been his regent and was his father-in-law. Now I have argued that Valentinian’s betrayal of Aetius was worse, but that is more a matter of his direct personal involvement – killing Aetius himself – being more despicable. The betrayal by Honorius of Stilicho was more destructive for the empire.

Firstly, at least Valentinian III waited until the threat of Attila and his Huns had receded from Italy (and the empire itself as it turned out) before his betrayal of Aetius. Honorius betrayed Stilicho when the threat of Alaric and his Visigoths to Italy and Rome was still very much dire. Secondly – and worse – Honorius’ betrayal of Stilicho strengthened that threat, both by removing Stilicho as the effective deterrent to it and with the defection of Stilicho’s foederati troops en masse to Alaric following Honorius’ massacre of their families as Stilicho’s camp followers.Thirdly, at least Valentinian’s betrayal of Alaric had the prompt consequence of Valentinian’s own assassination, where Honorius continued to burden the empire with his reign for another fifteen years.

Although Honorius didn’t have to wait that long for the sack of Rome which followed as a consequence of his betrayal of Stilicho. That betrayal led in a direct line to the sack of Rome by Alaric and the Visigoths in 410, which again was arguably worse than the corresponding sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455.

Firstly, the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410 was a profound shock to the empire, the first such sack for eight centuries. While the sack of Rome by the Vandals was more destructive – such that the Vandals lent their name as a synonym for destruction ever since – it lacked that same sense of shock given the recent occurrence of the first sack. Secondly, at least Valentinian wasn’t still alive to injure Rome further with his continued existence for its sack in 455 AD. Thirdly, Honorius added insult to injury with his initial alarm that Rome had “perished” was a reference to his favorite pet chicken he had named Roma, where he was relieved to find out it was only in reference to the actual city. That story has been identified to be likely an apocryphal one, but it’s just too true to his character and symbolic with respect to it involving a chicken that I accept it anyway.

The only distinction between Honorius and Valentinian III that led to the former reigning fifteen more years after his betrayal of Stilicho was that Honorius was fortunate enough to have a capable general (and briefly co-emperor) in Constantius III to substitute for Stilicho propping up him and the empire. All Valentinian III had after Aetius was Petronius Maximus and we’ve seen how well that went – his own assassination and the sack of Rome.

Also, Honorius was literally the creepy uncle to Valentinian, albeit more to Valentinian’s mother (and his half sister), so I blame Honorius somewhat for how Valentinian turned out.

As usual, Edward Gibbon had the best snark about Honorius, which I can’t resist quoting in all its glory –

“His feeble and languid disposition was alike incapable of discharging the duties of his rank…the amusement of feeding poultry became the serious and daily care of the monarch of the West, who resigned the reins of empire to the firm and skilful hand of his guardian Stilicho…The predecessors of Honorius were accustomed to animate by their example, or at least by their presence, the valour of the legions; and the dates of their laws attest the perpetual activity of their motions through the provinces of the Roman world. But the son of Theodosius passed the slumber of his life a captive in his palace, a stranger in his country, and the patient, almost the indifferent, spectator of the ruin of the Western empire, which was repeatedly attacked, and finally subverted, by the arms of the barbarians. In the eventful history of a reign of twenty-eight years, it will seldom be necessary to mention the name of the emperor Honorius”.

EMPIRE BREAKER

Arguably the emperor who broke the empire more than anyone else.

I’m not going to even bother with imperial victory titles or deification – he had none and deserved less. I’m not sure the Senate was doing damnatio memoriae by then.

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT?

Probably the virgin emperor Dovahhatty did best – and said it best, as evidenced by the quote I featured at the outset.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

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

(5) WORST: VALENTINIAN III –

THEODOSIAN DYNASTY

(425 – 455 AD: 29 YEARS 4 MONTHS 21 DAYS)

Getting up there as the worst Roman emperor ever, although you could easily shuffle him and his predecessor Honorius for that spot, as they are so uncannily similar as to be interchangeable.

Each was a model of supine inactivity as the empire crumbled, except for betraying the loyal subordinate who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back, with each having one of the two notorious sacks of Rome following shortly afterwards. Between the two of them and their inexplicably long reigns – of similar length of 30 years each – they broke the western Roman empire and presided over its fall. It’s like the Roman Empire cloned its crappiest emperor, just so it could have him reign twice over to ensure its own fall.

In the case of Valentinian III, that loyal subordinate was his general Aetius – who defeated Attila the Hun’s invasion of Gaul. One could argue that his betrayal of Aetius was even worse than the corresponding betrayal of Stilicho by Honorius. Firstly, because he waited until Aetius had defeated the Huns and felt secure enough that he no longer needed Aetius. Secondly because the creep did it himself, the only time he ever drew a sword, striking down the unarmed Aetius and with a pack to back him up no less. And thirdly, he had the sheer hubris to boast that he had done well to dispose of Aetius in such a way, prompting a counsellor’s famous reply “Whether well or not, I do not know. But know that you have cut off your right hand with your left”.

Edward Gibbon summed it up best with this acid observation in his characteristic prose – “But the emperor of the West, the feeble and dissolute Valentinian, who had reached his thirty-fifth year without attaining the age of reason or courage, abused this apparent security to undermine the foundations of his own throne by the murder of the patrician Aetius. From the instinct of a base and jealous mind, he hated the man who was universally celebrated as the terror of the barbarians and the support of the republic.”

And in the case of Valentinian III, the notorious sack of Rome following shortly afterwards was the Sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455 AD – although he wasn’t alive to see it as fortunately karma had kicked in and he had been killed by two of Aetius’ loyal followers, orchestrated by Petronius Maximus.

A disgrace to the proud name of Valentinian the Great, although Valentinian III hailed from that worst of classical Roman dynasties, the Theodosian dynasty.

“Valentinian’s reign is marked by the dismemberment” – DISMEMBERMENT! – “of the Western Empire; by the time of his death, virtually all of North Africa, all of western Spain, and the majority of Gaul had passed out of Roman hands. He is described as spoiled, pleasure-loving, and heavily influenced by sorcerers and astrologers and devoted to religion”. That’s right – Valentinian III, resorting to sorcery and astrology in the ghost dance of the Roman Empire.

That devotion to religion, of course being Christianity – somewhat inconsistent with the influence “by sorcerers and astrologers” – at least contributed to him giving greater authority to the Papacy, which might explain his only good decision, using Pope Leo as an envoy to Attila the Hun in the latter’s invasion of Italy, which succeeded (among other things) in persuading Attila to leave Italy without sacking Rome, never to return to attack Italy or the empire as it turned out.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

EMPIRE BREAKER

THE empire breaker, along with his predecessor Honorius

MAXIMUS

No, just no.

DAMNED

He should have been – I’ll take his assassination as damnatio memoriae.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT ?

Dovahhatty ranks him aptly as virgin emperor in the heartbreaking final episode of the series on classical empire, The Fall of Rome.

Dovahhatty – Unbiased HIstory of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

(6) WORST: COMMODUS –

NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY

(180 – 192 AD: 12 YEARS 9 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

Aptly enough in matching sixth place entry for the worst Roman emperors as his father Marcus Aurelius is for the best.

His accession was the exact moment Rome went from a kingdom of gold to a kingdom of iron and rust, according to contemporary historian Cassius Dio (and almost literally in the form of him debasing the currency)

I mean, you have seen the gospel according to Ridley Scott – Gladiator – haven’t you? Yes, it’s – ahem – not entirely accurate to history, but it does capture the essence of Commodus, even if that is turned all the way up to eleven (and combined with Caligula) in the film.

Joaquim Phoenix nailed it with a despicably oily performance as Commodus – it’s something he does well, as in the Joker film. Come to think of it, his Joker would adapt reasonably well to Commodus.

In real life, Commodus was not killed in the arena by Maximus, a vengeful ex-general sentenced whose family Commodus had executed but was strangled in his bath by his wrestling partner Narcissus as part of a wider plot. However, if the latter doesn’t smack of symbolism for his reign of dissolute narcissism, I don’t know what does.

He was the first emperor “born in the purple”, that is, as during his father’s reign as emperor, and remained the only one for about two more centuries, as well as the empire’s best advertisement for an imperial line of succession by adoption,

In fairness, “whereas the reign of Marcus Aurelius had been marked by almost continuous warfare, Commodus’ rule was comparatively peaceful in the military sense” – mainly because he flaked out on finishing his father’s wars along the Danube properly – “but was also characterised by political strife and the increasingly arbitrary and capricious behaviour of the emperor himself”.

Not that he was any more interested in peacetime imperial administration than he was in the empire’s military policy – he preferred role playing as Hercules or as a gladiator, the latter more akin to an abattoir for animals (when human gladiators weren’t taking a dive against him), which turned off even the usually bloodthirsty Roman audience.

Edward Gibbon’s title for his chapter on Commodus sums it up – the “cruelty, follies and murder of Commodus”. In it, Gibbon wrote “Commodus had now attained the summit of vice and infamy”.

Also – “But every sentiment of virtue and humanity was extinct in the mind of Commodus. Whilst he thus abandoned the reins of empire to these unworthy favourites, he valued nothing in sovereign power, except the unbounded licence of indulging his sensual appetites”.

MAXIMUS

He shared his father’s triumphs as Germanicus and Sarmaticus. He claimed the title of Germanicus Maximus from the victories of his generals, and Britannicus from the extension of Roman Britain to the Antonine Wall. Sigh

DAMNED & DEIFIED

After his death, the Senate declared him a public enemy, albeit without any formal damnatio memoriae. Subsequent emperor Septimus Severus, seeking favor from the family of Marcus Aurelius, had Commodus deified. Sigh.

EMPIRE DEBASER

According to Cassius Dio, THE empire debaser.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

O yes – one of the vilest virgin depiction of any emperor in his unbiased history. Of course, it helps that he depicts the reign of Commodus with tongue in cheek as if Gladiator was real history.

Or does he? Also with tongue in cheek, in his sequel video about the Severan dynasty, he depicts the reign of Commodus again more accurately to recorded history but with Commodus as chad – before joking the “historian Ridley Scott already debunked all this garbage”.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

(7) WORST: CARACALLA –
SEVERAN DYNASTY
(211 – 217 AD: 6 YEARS 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry – the Incredible Hulk of the Roman Empire, not in superhuman strength but in violent temper, smashing his way from one end of the empire to another.

One of two entries from the terrible Severan dynasty in my top ten worst emperors, Lucius Septimus Bassianus – or as he is known to history, Caracalla, his nickname from the cloak he wore while cosplaying as a soldier. What is it with two of the worst Roman emperors being nicknamed for their clothing (and military cosplay clothing at that)…?

Technically he reigned as co-emperor with his father (and founder of the Severan dynasty) Septimus Severus from 198 AD and then with his younger brother Geta as well from 209 AD. His father died in February 211 AD and his brother died in December 211 – the latter with a little help from Caracalla. Or a lot of help, as Caracalla orchestrated Geta’s murder by the Praetorian Guard – worse in the guise that Caracalla had their mother Julia Domna arrange a peace meeting with his brother in her apartments, thus depriving Geta of his bodyguards, and then had him murdered in her arms.

Low blow, bro – although their mother got over it, obviously reconciling herself with the thought that one live imperial son in the hand was better than a dead one in damnation memoria (which Caracalla of course had the Senate decree for Geta). Indeed, she essentially ran Caracalla’s imperial administration for him, as he found it too boring.

What he didn’t find boring was lavishing attention on the military and playing as a soldier in the provinces. And by lavishing attention, I mean spending money and debasing the currency to do it. The denarius? Caracalla smash! He instituted another coin for Rome’s currency but debased that too.

That is, when he was taking time off from his purges and massacres, including his infamous purge of Geta’s supporters and his equally infamous massacre of the inhabitants of Alexandria because he was insulted by a play about him in that city.

One seemingly positive achievement was that he did decree all free men (with certain exceptions) as Roman citizens, thereafter puzzling historians as to his motives, although it is usually attributed to extending the tax base.

In fairness, he also did a reasonable job at shoring up the empire against Germanic tribes along the Rhine and Danube. On the other hand, the latter part of his reign was spent entirely away from Rome, starting with an ongoing tour of the provinces, reputed to bankrupt provincial governments with his extravagant expenses. It was this that prompted Edward Gibbon to write that “every province was by turn the scene of his rapine and cruelty”. That’s metaphorical rapine I presume, although you never know with the bad Roman emperors.

He then obsessively began playing as Alexander the Great, to the point of starting a war with Persia’s Parthian Empire by a Red Wedding style of massacre (although the accounts vary), which may have indirectly played a part in the rise of the Sassanids that followed as a rod for the empire’s back – and definitely played a part in a knife for his own, as he was assassinated during his war with Parthia.

“Caracalla has had a reputation as being among the worst of Roman emperors, a perception that survives even into modern works…historian David Magie describes Caracalla, in the book Roman Rule in Asia Minor, as brutal and tyrannical and points towards psychopathy as an explanation for his behaviour”.

MAXIMUS:

Britannicus Maximus mooching off his father’s campaign but he got Germannicus Maximus on his own

DEIFIED:

Dude should have had a damnatio memoriae but got deified instead. I mean, they’d deify anyone those days.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yeah – this is one of a number of emperors that Dovahhatty has his tongue firmly in his parody cheek by depicting them as the chads they proclaimed themselves to be. Indeed, most of them are in my top ten worst emperors, so I’m going to keep a running score of them from here on. Parody chads – Caracalla. Check.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(8) WORST: CONSTANTINE II –

CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY

(337 – 340: 2 YEARS 7 MONTHS)

A whiny little toad, who tried to usurp his younger brother and got pawned instead.

Letting his father’s name down, Constantine II spent his time whining that he didn’t get more than the western third of empire he got in 337 AD as one of three brothers because he was the eldest.

He was of course fine with his brother Constantius – the one who actually got things done – doing the dirty work of whittling down their father’s male relatives in what is known as the massacre of the princes so the three brothers could inherit their father’s empire. He just thought he was entitled to more of it. Constans got the central third, including Italy, while Constantius got the eastern third – you know, the third fighting the Persian Sassanids.

So Constantine bullied his younger brother and ward Constans as an easy target. And yes – I said ward, because Constantius had designated Constantine II the guardian of Constans until Constans came of age.

Constantine II successfully bullied Constans into giving him part of Africa but squabbled over Constans retaining Carthage, refused to relinquish his guardianship when Constans turned eighteen, and just tried to usurp Constans instead, marching into Italy with his troops in 340 AD.

Only to be ambushed and killed by the forces of Constans – not even by Constans or his main forces, but by a detachment of troops Constans sent ahead of himself and his main forces while taking care of imperial business in Dacia, fighting actual enemies of Rome.

Congratulations, Constantine II – you played yourself.

Constans then got his brother’s third of the empire, consisting of Hispania, Gaul and Britain

MAXIMUS

Yeah, right.

DEIFICATION OR DAMNATION

No damnation or deification as far as I’m aware

EMPIRE DEBASER

I’ve gone with empire debaser for him – it can’t be said that he broke or debauched the empire, but I think it can be said he debased it. His father had fought to unify the empire and eliminate usurpers – only for Constantine II and his brothers to divide it, compounded by him trying to usurp his brother’s realm – preempting the successful usurpation of Constans by Magnentius a decade later.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Yeah – Dovahhatty does it right, ranking him as a virgin, as in my feature image.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

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

(9) WORST: ARCADIUS –
THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: EASTERN EMPIRE
(395 – 408 AD: 13 YEARS 3 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

And now we come to the worst imperial dynasty, the Theodosian dynasty – the dynasty virtually synonymous with the fall of the Roman empire, and effectively the Roman counterpart to the barbarians at the gates. Or dare I say it, Rome’s own home-grown barbarians in the gates?

Theodosius was the last emperor to (briefly) rule the empire as a whole, institutionalizing its imperial division by inflicting his two terrible sons on it, Honorius and Arcadius – one on each of its western and eastern halves. The western empire did worse with the son it got but it’s as if the empire was trying hard to churn out the worst possible imperial clones to ensure its fall. As we’ll see, the western empire did that twice over with Valentinian III as a virtual clone of Honorius but it’s like the eastern empire also got their Honorius clone with Arcadius.

Arcadius was much like his brother in the western empire, weak and useless, puppeted by subordinates but luckier in that the eastern empire was more robust. He was also fortunate to have capable administrators, notably the prefect Anthemius. I’m also prepared to give Arcadius slightly more credit than his brother because he seems to have had major health issues which incapacitated him and led to an early death, sparing history more of his reign.

Like his brother, Arcadius also caused major issues for the empire’s supreme military commander Stilicho as the latter attempted to shore up the eastern half of the empire against its Germanic barbarian invaders as he did the western half. Those Germanic barbarian invaders were the Visigoths led by Alaric, rampaging in the Balkans (before rampaging in Italy itself). Arcadius stymied Stilicho’s attempts to defend the eastern empire, albeit as always under the influence of subordinates – before incredibly declaring Stilicho as public enemy and appointing Alaric, the leader of the Goths sacking the eastern empire, as magister militum or military commander to defend that same empire.

At least Arcadius didn’t actively betray and execute Stilicho, as opposed to his brother as western emperor. However, the damage was done, albeit ultimately more to the western empire and Rome itself, with this and other actions widening the ever more gaping division between the western and eastern empires.

EMPIRE-BREAKER

Well, obviously – but less so than others in his dynasty, notably his brother in the western empire.

MAXIMUS / DEIFICATION

No need to bother with imperial victory titles or deification – nothing to see here, although in fairness I think the institutionalization of Christianity had done away with deification by then.

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT?

The first depiction by Dovahhatty of an emperor as virgin in this top ten but by no means the last – and appropriately presented as more pitifully pathetic than others. The virgin part is of course from the metaphorical virgin-chad meme – he was succeeded by his son Theodosius II.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XXIX: Fall of Rome

(10) WORST: PETRONIUS MAXIMUS –

NON-DYNASTIC / LAST WESTERN ROMAN EMPERORS

(455 AD: 2 MONTHS 14 DAYS)

If Majorian was the zenith of the non-dynastic last western Roman emperors after the end of the Theodosian dynasty in 455 AD, Petronius Maximus was the absolute nadir – and hence matching wildcard tenth place entry in my top ten worst Roman emperors.

I mean, while the other non-dynastic last western Roman emperors apart from Majorian were generally useless or puppets, Petronius Maximus was actively destructive, with a cowardly low rat cunning quality to boot.

Admittedly, his most destructive acts were prior to becoming emperor – because they were how he ascended to the imperial throne in the first place. They were two-fold – firstly duping his predecessor Valentinian III into assassinating the man who was effectively the one holding the empire together, Flavius Aetius, and secondly then orchestrating the assassination of Valentinian III, adding treacherous insult to injury by enlisting two loyal followers of Aetius among his predecessor’s bodyguard to do it.

All that evil wasn’t enough for him to ascend the throne – there were other contenders to the throne, including Marjorian (and one anticipates history would have turned out better with Majorian becoming emperor then instead). So Petronius Maximus, a wealthy Senator and aristocrat, bribed his way through the Senate and imperial officials to the throne.

He then sought to consolidate his position as emperor by marrying Licinia, the widow of his imperial predecessor – the fiend! – but then effectively sowed the seeds of his downfall by also marrying her daughter Eudocia to his son. That involved cancelling her betrothal to the son of the Vandal king Gaeseric in north Africa – who promptly set about preparations for their infamous sack of Rome.

However, Petronius Maximus wasn’t done with being a rat. With the Vandals sailing for Italy and the citizens of Rome in panic or flight, he abandoned any defence of the city and sought to organise his escape instead.

Fortunately, karma kicked in and he was abandoned by his bodyguard and entourage to fend for himself, when he was set upon by an angry mob (or soldier – accounts vary) and killed, with his mutilated corpse thrown into the Tiber.

Good riddance but sadly his downfall was also that of Rome in its second sack, as the Vandals of course still sacked the city – and still got the girl, as Gaeseric took Eudocia back to Africa with him (along with her mother and sister as well as many other citizens as slaves). Well at least someone got a happy ending, compared to being married to Petronius or his son.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (FAIL TIER)

MAXIMUS:

Well except for his ill-deserved name, although I suppose you could say Petronius Maximus did defeat Petronius Maximus.

DAMNED:

No formal damnatio memoriae – probably because the Senate and Romans were too busy with Rome being sacked – but someone should have damned him. I’ll take him being killed by the mob and tossed in the Tiber as an informal damnatio memoriae.

EMPIRE BREAKER

O yes – but sadly not the biggest empire breaker in this top ten.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Frankly, Dovahhatty ranks him too high as a wojak.