Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based, indeed.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(3) DOMITIAN –

FLAVIAN DYNASTY

(81 – 96 AD: 15 YEARS 4 DAYS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literally with respect to the currency

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEIFICATION:
Yes, he turned into a god

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(1) CLAUDIUS –

JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(41-54 AD: 13 YEARS 8 MONTHS 19 DAYS)

“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”

Yes – it’s the first of six special mentions where you could arguably swap them into the top ten best emperors without too much protest.

It was a close call between Claudius and the other good imperial candidate from the Julio-Claudian dynasty who is my next special mention entry. Claudius just won out for a few reasons, but primarily because he inherited the empire from the worst emperor as opposed to the best. And I use inherited very loosely, as he was not a formal heir but was thrust into his position as emperor by the Praetorian Guard after they had assassinated his predecessor, Caligula – the tradition is that one of the Guard found him hiding behind a curtain and declared him emperor.

Also, Claudius was put upon throughout his life – hence Dovahhatty’s catchphrase for him “such was life for Uncle Claudius”, originating from his physical infirmities he had since youth, including a limp and stammer, although he claimed to have exaggerated them to survive the reign of Caligula.

And a lot of people have a soft spot for him from his sympathetic portrayal in Robert Graves’ I, Claudius and its BBC TV adaptation.

Anyway, he was thrown headfirst into the position of emperor without any choice or background for it on his part and he did a pretty damn good job of it, essentially emulating Augustus and pulling it off to a substantial degree.

He was an able and efficient administrator, above all restoring the empire’s finances after their ruination by the excesses of Caligula’s reign – while also being an ambitious builder of projects and public works across the empire and in its capital.

He also expanded the empire in its first (and most enduring) major expansion since Augustus – annexing or completing the annexation of Thrace (so that the empire finally encircled the Mediterranean completely), Noricum, Lycia, Judaea and Mauretania – but is best known for the conquest of Britain during his reign, although Rome might have been better off without that province in the long run.

His biggest drawback was his choice of successor as Nero, albeit secured largely through his wife (and Nero’s mother) Agrippina’s manipulation of him – including, as it was widely believed by contemporaries, murdering him by poison.

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

EMPIRE BASER