(3) SILBANNACUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

A mystery numismatic emperor too obscure even for Dovahhatty – if he had done anything worthwhile, someone would have written something about him, amirite? As it is, we only know about him from two coins.

Once again I refer to Adrian Goldsworthy’s observation that our list of imperial claimants is likely never to be complete or exhaustive, given the paucity of the contemporary historical record and that we are still finding ‘imperial’ coins minted in the name of new or unknown claimants.

Well, Silbannacus is one such imperial claimant, about whom almost nothing is known as he doesn’t appear in any literary historical sources. It may seem a little unfair to rank him as dishonorable mention and so low in my rankings to boot – but hey, at least he outranked two other dishonorable mentions even only as two coins, although that may say more about those other mentions.

Silbannacus makes the Wikipedia list of emperors as being of “ambiguous legitimacy”, hence my dishonorable mention for him, which he earns from two coins in his name found in the twentieth century.

“Based on the design of the coin and its silver content, Silbannacus was most likely concurrent with the reigns of Philip the Arab (r.244–249), Decius (r.249–251), Trebonianus Gallus (r.251–253), Aemilian (r.253), or Valerian (r.253–260). The two most prevalent ideas are the older hypothesis, that Silbannacus was a usurper in Gaul during the reign of Philip the Arab, at some point between 248 and 250, and the newer hypothesis, based on the design of the second coin, that Silbannacus was a briefly reigning legitimate emperor, holding Rome between the death of Aemilian and the arrival of Valerian.”

Shout-out to Sponsian while we’re taking numismatic mystery emperors – too obscure even to make the Wikipedia list of emperors or anything more than this footnote in my dishonorable mentions, although he does have a Wikipedia entry as a possible usurper in the Crisis of the Third Century, apparently from a few coins in his name in a hoard of coins found in Transylvania in the eighteenth century but only verified as authentic in 2022. There seem to be two leading theories for him. The first is that he was a usurper during the reign of Gordian III or Philip the Arab, based on the other coins found with his coins. The other theory is that he was a military commander who proclaimed himself emperor when Dacia was cut off from the rest of the empire around 260 AD.

RATING: 1 STAR*
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

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

(2) PRISCUS ATTALUS –
USURPER: THEODOSIAN DYNASTY (ITALY & GAUL)
(409-410 AD & 414-415 AD)

You know – this one surprised me in ranking him as my worst usurper and second worst dishonorable mention.

After all, he usurped the Theodosian dynasty and its worst emperor Honorius at that, so you’d think I’d be all on board for him but I just can’t forgive him the circumstances. Foremost among them being that it wasn’t really him doing the usurping – he was a Senator acclaimed as emperor by the Visigothic leader Alaric just prior to sacking Rome as a puppet against Honorius, the first western emperor to be raised to that office by a barbarian and precursor of the last western Roman emperors to come.

And as easily deposed and stripped of his imperial regalia by Alaric as Alaric alternated between beseiging Rome and seeking to achieve his aims through negotiations with Honorius instead.

Or rather, I might have been able to forgive him, given that Attalus did show some signs of trying to be more than a mere puppet, if it hadn’t happened twice – and he’d had the good sense to know when to call it quits, as he was again acclaimed as emperor in Gaul by Alaric’s successor Atalphaus, only to again be deserted by his Visigoth patrons. This time, he didn’t get off so easy, as he was captured by Honorius’ men and exiled to an unknown fate, although it might have been more pleasant than he deserved since he was exiled to the Aeolian Islands.

RATING: 1 STAR*
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

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

(1) VOLUSIANUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(251 – 253 AD: 2 YEARS)

Surprisingly not a usurper but one of those emperors of “varying ascribed status” in Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors, Volusianus earns my worst dishonorable mention entry because he couldn’t even achieve his uselessness on his own, but as the son and junior co-emperor of that equally useless embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century, Trebonianus Gallus.

Trebonianus Gallus first acclaimed his son as caesar, then as co-emperor or co-augustus – possibly murdering the preceding co-emperor Hostilian, the son of his predecessor Decius, to do so, at least according to Roman historian Zosimus.

Anyway, Volusianus was equally as weak and useless as his father, but without even achieving his imperial position for himself – “both chose to stay in Rome rather than confront the invasions” of Goths and Sassanid Persians that were overrunning large parts of the empire.

The governor of the province of Moesia, Aemilian, at least succeeded in repelling the Goths – and for that his soldiers proclaimed him emperor. He marched on Rome with his legions. Characteristically, the father and son team of Gallus and Volusianus called for help from someone useful, the future emperor Valerian as military commander in Gaul, but Aemilian got to them first – or rather, their own troops did, mutinying and killing both of them so as to avoid battle with Aemilian.

RATING: 1 STAR*
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

But wait – there’s more!

I’ve ranked the thirty Roman emperors I consider as ‘good’ emperors and the balance of fifty-one Roman emperors I consider as ‘bad’ emperors, a total of 81 emperors from Augustus to Romulus Augustulus – but as I noted for my good emperors, the bad emperors don’t quite end there. There’s my dishonorable mentions for imperial claimants that don’t quite have the same authenticity or legitimacy as those I ranked in my Top 10 Worst Roman Emperors or special mentions.

Yes – it’s usurping time! Or at least, those imperial claimants generally generally labelled as usurpers. That term is bit elastic or a question of degree for Roman emperors, with the primary distinction being those who succeeded in their imperial claim and those who did not – “A large number of emperors commonly considered as legitimate began their rule as usurpers, revolting against the previous legitimate emperor”.

As I said at the outset of ranking the emperors, I’ve gone by Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors but reserved honorable mention – or in this case dishonorable mention – for those entries in the Wikipedia list which are noted as being of “ambiguous legitimacy” or “varying ascribed status”. The junior co-emperors marked as the latter “are figures, mostly children, who are usually not counted as “true” emperors given their submissive status to the senior emperor, but are still present in some lists of rulers”.

And in contrast to my three honorable mentions, there’s a lot more dishonorable mentions for usurpers and other dubious imperial figures. After all, usurpers by definition tend to be ‘bad’, although some of them come close to or sit right on the line between my ‘good’ and ‘bad’ rankings.

Ultimately, I’ve ranked twenty such emperors or imperial figures in fifteen dishonorable mentions (obviously ranking two together in some dishonorable mention entries where they were essentially similar or close enough for the one entry)