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

(20) MAXIMINUS THRAX –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(235-238 AD: 3 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

Maximinus I, nicknamed Maximinus Thrax for his Thracian origin – or as I like to call him, Max Thrax, the archetypal barracks emperor. Also second of two emperors right on my dividing line between good emperors and bad ones – I will defend my Pertinax-Thrax line!

I will also defend that Maximinus Thrax was on the good side of that line separating good emperors from bad, albeit only just.

Interestingly, this is somewhat paralleled by Spectrum’s ranking of him in median position of emperors prior to 395 AD, which even noted that “this guy being in the median position actually fits what you would expect from your average Roman emperor”. (Although Spectrum sets his bar for good emperors much higher than I do, ranking only 15 emperors before 395 AD as good)

Proposing Max Thrax as a good emperor, even borderline, might seem odd. As stated, he was the archetypal barracks emperor – and also the archetypal Crisis of the Third Century emperor, particularly as his reign is often considered to mark the start of the Crisis, proclaimed by his troops as emperor after the army assassinated his predecessor, Severus Alexander.

Furthermore, he is often portrayed as a bad emperor, indeed, a cruel despot – not least by the Historia Augusta, which also portrayed him as a giant over 8 feet tall. The Roman historian Herodian didn’t quite go that far, but did describe him as man of “frightening appearance and colossal size”. So who’s going to tell him he’s a bad emperor? You? I don’t think so.

Which, by the way, was pretty much the attitude of the Senate towards him, so they conspired in plots to assassinate him and proclaim other candidates for emperor, leading to the so-called Year of Six Emperors, outdoing the previous Year of Four Emperors and the Year of Five Emperors.

A good part of this was usual Senatorial snobbery towards a provincial of low birth who had risen through the ranks of the army, not even a true Roman but a barbarian – hence that Thrax title. However, they were also simply scared sh*tless of this man-mountain, particularly as Max Thrax more than reciprocated their hostility after their plots and other proclaimed emperors failed.

If Rome wouldn’t come to the mountain, then the mountain was coming to Rome – Max Thrax marched on Rome, Sulla-like, with his legions. Fortunately for the Senate, he was baulked by the city of Aquileia, which closed its gates against him – and he was assassinated by his mutinous, starving troops when the siege bogged down, having never set foot in Rome during his reign.

All of which seems to add to the oddity of my proposal for him as a good emperor but my proposal essentially arises for the reason that he was mostly too busy to be bothered with Rome for his reign of three years – doing what he did best, leading his legions in nearly constant campaigning to defend the empire at its frontiers, despite the Senate’s shenanigans which included trying to kill him on campaign. That and the small matter that he was easily the best of the emperors in the Year of Six Emperors.

Of course, the costs of his campaigning, as well as the heavy-handed harsh nature of his rule in the nature of military discipline, led to what he is usually criticized for as emperor – debasing the currency, excessive taxation and lavishing funds on the army.

But – and this is where my proposal comes in – it was effective against the Germanic barbarian tribes at the frontier. He defeated the Alamanni, taking the title of Germanicus Maximus – and campaigned deep into Germany itself, to the furthest extent of any Roman campaign in Germany, defeating a German tribe at the Battle of Harzhorn beyond the river Weser located in the modern German state of Saxony.

Wikipedia notes this achievement of “securing the German frontier, at least for a while” – but personally I think this understates that Maximinus’ campaigning seems to have secured the German frontier for a substantial period, remaining quiet and arguably buying the empire precious breathing space and time at that frontier in its crisis.

His achievements went beyond his campaigns on and beyond the German frontier. He was at the Danubian frontier with his legions fighting the Dacians and Sarmatians before marching on Rome – and his achievements may have extended further yet, as apparently Israeli archaeologists identified his name on a milestone in the Golan Heights, suggesting a massive renovation project during his rule on those roads.

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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

(19) PERTINAX
NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF FIVE EMPERORS
(193 AD: 2 MONTHS 27 DAYS)

Oof – reigns don’t get much briefer than that. We come now to the first of two emperors right on my dividing line between good emperors and bad ones, although I will defend both that line and those two emperors being on the good side of it, albeit only just (hence their three-star and mid-tier ranking).

Poor Pertinax – he essentially tried to pull off a Nerva, but was unlucky to be faced with a more aggressive and frankly out of control Praetorian Guard. Indeed, in terms of his brief administration, he was better than Nerva, particularly in financial reform, but just didn’t get the same chance Nerva did.

Like Nerva (and Tacitus), Pertinax succeeded an assassinated predecessor – in this case (and good riddance), Commodus. Born the son of a freed slave, Pertinax had risen through the ranks of the army, notably in the Roman-Parthian War of 161-166, to a career as provincial governor of a number of provinces and urban prefect of Rome. It was as the latter that the Praetorian Guard hurried to proclaim him as emperor after the assassination of Commodus, the first in what came to be called the Year of Five Emperors.

And for someone thrust into the position, Pertinax took a damn good swing at it. The most pressing issue was economic reform for an empire left with a treasury emptied by the profligacy of Commodus. Pertinax even emulated Domitian, reforming and revaluing the currency.

He managed to pay the Praetorian Guard off their expected ‘donations’ (or bribes) – by selling off Commodus’ booty (in both senses of the word, as it included pleasure slaves). However, he didn’t pay them enough – because of the aforementioned empty treasury – and that was compounded by him attempting to impose some semblance of military discipline on them as well.

You can guess how well that turned out for Pertinax. Not well, in short, as the Praetorian Guard descended on his palace. Rather than flee, Pertinax attempted to reason with them, appealing to their decency and service to the empire as well as the empty treasury – but of course being the Praetorian Guard, they killed him instead and proceeded to auction off the imperial throne.

It says something about Pertinax that he has consistently had a good historical reputation, even almost immediately after his assassination – probably because everyone deplored the Praetorian Guard.

The emperor who ultimately won out in the Year of Five Emperors, Septimius Severus, had Pertinax deified and commemorated, as well as executing the assassins and replacing the Praetorian Guard with loyal soldiers.

Historian Cassio Dio upheld him as “an excellent and upright man” who displayed “not only humaneness and integrity in the imperial administrations, but also the most economical management and the most careful consideration for the public welfare”. However, he did acknowledge that some called out Pertinax’s decision to reason with the Praetorian Guard as “senseless” – and that Pertinax might have been better to substitute a more tempered approach for the speed with which he tried to reform the imperial government.

So I’m not the only one to hold the Pertinax line. Writer Sophia McDougall even used his reign for the point of divergence for her alternate history novel Romanitas – “the plot against Pertinax was thwarted, and Pertinax introduced a series of reforms that would consolidate the Roman Empire to such a degree that it would still be a major power in the 21st century”.

RANKING: 3 STARS***
C-TIER (MID-TIER)
EMPIRE-BASER. Well, he tried to be – and he would have succeeded but for those meddling Praetorian Guards

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

(18) NERVA –
NERVA-ANTONINE / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS
(96-98: 1 YEAR 4 MONTHS 9 DAYS)

And now we come to the last of the Five Good Emperors in my rankings, who ironically was the first of them in historical sequence. As that implies, his inclusion in the Five Good Emperors overstates him as a good emperor – he was decent enough, but really only as a senatorial caretaker or placeholder to ensure the stability of imperial succession from his assassinated predecessor to his successor. But what a successor!

The predecessor was Domitian – an emperor I rank as good, indeed much better than Nerva, but who undeniably inflamed the senatorial and aristocratic hostility that saw him assassinated, which might well have resulted in a succession crisis or civil war but for Nerva. Nerva was declared emperor by the Senate – although he was almost 66 years of age, he had a lifetime of distinguished service under Nero and the Flavian dynasty.

The successor was of course Trajan and really it was only this succession that ranks Nerva among good emperors at all, let alone among the Five Good Emperors – or let alone gives his name to the historical label of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty.

That Nerva shares those conventional historical labels of the Five Good Emperors or the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty is definitely inflated. Macchiavelli coined the term of the Five Good Emperors, while Gibbon picked up that ball and ran with it. Frankly, the term should be the Four Good Emperors (with special appearance by Lucius Verus), dropping Nerva altogether – and it should also be the Trajanic-Antonine dynasty.

Otherwise, he wasn’t that good. Ancient historians loved him as “a wise and moderate emperor” but that’s not surprising as ancient historians were of the senatorial class and he was favorable to the Senate, in marked contrast to the mutual hostility between his predecessor Domitian and the Senate.

Modern historians on the other hand have assessed him less favorably. Brief as it was, his reign caused financial difficulties – particularly heart-breaking after the financial prudence and revaluation of the currency under Domitian. His reign was also “marred” by his “inability to assert control over the Roman army”. Even his greatest achievement – his nomination of a successor (and accordingly “the peaceful transition of power after his death”) – was forced upon him by the revolt of the Praetorian Guard.

Spectrum summed it up – “The first of the Five Good Emperors, but let’s be real here, he wasn’t a good emperor. He sent the empire into financial troubles and his rule was marked by the fact that the army hated him. The only good thing he did was choosing Trajan as his successor and that’s the only reason he’s one of the Five Good Emperors. It was a good pick for sure though”.

I think that’s a little too caustic, hence my ranking of Nerva as a good emperor, albeit towards the tail end of good emperors. Spectrum and other critics underestimate the importance of succession. Yes, his only real achievement might have been ensuring the peaceful transition to a good successor, but that’s still an impressive achievement, given how many Roman emperors screwed even that up. Even Tacitus – my Crisis of the Third Century counterpart to Nerva – didn’t quite pull off a Nerva as well as Nerva himself when it came to a successor.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE-BASER

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

(17) TACITUS
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(275-276: 7 MONTHS)

No, not the historian that everyone knows when they hear the name, if only for his famous quote about making a desert and calling it peace, but the emperor no one knows.

In fairness, we are coming to the tail end of emperors I rank as good, but Tacitus was pretty decent, even with his brief reign, albeit brief reigns were typical for emperors in the Crisis of the Third Century. Indeed, so much so that this is the only one of my special mention pairings of an emperor matching one in the Crisis of the Third Century where I rank the Crisis emperor over his non-Crisis counterpart.

Tacitus and his non-Crisis counterpart were essentially both (elderly) senatorial caretaker or placeholder emperors – enabling the stable succession of imperial authority from an assassinated predecessor to a more capable successor.

In the case of Tacitus, his assassinated predecessor was one of the greatest emperors of all, the emperor who did the most to bring the empire back from the abyss – Aurelian. The usual account is that the army and Praetorian Guard, remorseful for the assassination of Aurelian, deferred the choice of imperial successor to the Senate – who chose Tacitus. Although the historical sources present him as elderly at the time, he had a distinguished career in public office. Not surprisingly, he restored the Senate’s authority in imperial administration.

Stable succession of imperial authority was critical at this time – although Aurelian had mostly brought the empire out of the Crisis, it would have been easy for the empire to slide right back into chaos after his assassination but for that stable succession through Tacitus.

In fairness, the succession wasn’t as stable as it might have been at the other end and more a matter of good fortune than design on the part of Tacitus. Tacitus died unexpectedly, either from illness or assassination (as the sources differ) – hence the brevity of his reign – but fortunately, albeit after a brief usurpation by his half-brother Florianus, he was succeeded by a more capable emperor with a longer reign, Probus, who consolidated the recovery of the empire from the Crisis.

I rank Tacitus above his non-Crisis counterpart because he was more than a mere placeholder for imperial succession despite his brief reign. This was still the Crisis of the Third Century after all, as the barbarian tribes continued to remind the empire by raiding it – and Tacitus won a victory over tribes raiding the Danubian frontier, gaining himself the title Gothicus Maximus. He was en route to deal with further barbarian invasions of Gaul by the Franks and Alamanni when he died.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

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

(16) VALERIAN –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY (EASTERN EMPIRE – CO-EMPEROR WITH HIS SON GALLIENUS)
(253 – 260: 6 YEARS 9 MONTHS)

My special mention entry as Crisis of the Third Century counterpart to Julian – similar in that his reign has also been defined by his defeat by the Sassanid Persians, although unlike Julian he was captured rather than mortally wounded in battle. Part of why it was so definitive is that he was the first emperor to be taken captive in battle, “causing shock and instability throughout the Roman empire” – as well as lurid tales of his fate at the hands of his captors.

There’s also a parallel with Julian in Valerian commanding the Roman forces on the Rhine prior to his accession as emperor, and even with Julian’s opposition to Christianity – although Valerian dealt with Christianity in the usual manner less appealing to modern sensibilities of imperial persecution prior to Christianity became an official religion.

But why does he rank as good emperor at all, you might ask – sharing a Sassanid Persian defeat with Julian, arguably leaving the eastern provinces of the empire in a much more precarious position than Julian’s defeat did, without any of Julian’s religious or administrative reform?

Well, Valerian did rule longer than Julian – nearly seven years, a miracle in the heart of the Crisis of the Third Century and the second longest reign after his son Gallienus in that period – having marched on Rome to restore the imperial authority that had collapsed and been usurped.

Valerian then almost immediately shared that imperial authority with Gallienus as co-emperor – and since the western and eastern halves of the empire were both in crisis, Valerian and Gallienus split the problems of the empire between them, Valerian taking the east while Gallienus took the west. Each held the line against overwhelming odds, with Valerian nearing and into his sixties.

Foremost among those odds for the eastern empire were the Sassanids, who had recently overthrown and taken over the Parthians in Persia, as well as proving far more dangerous to the Romans – attacking deeper into the Roman Empire than the Parthians ever had, reputed to have captured over thirty cities, including Antioch, one of the empire’s greatest cities.

Valerian was initially successful against the Sassanids, recovering Antioch and the province of Syria, but his problems were compounded by the Goths raiding deeper into the eastern provinces than any Germanic tribes ever had – with maritime raids along the Black Sea coastline and even to cities in Asia Minor.

Valerian got unlucky – “an outbreak of plague killed a critical number of legionaries” and the Sassanids attacked again. Valerian marched eastwards to engage them but was defeated and captured by them in the Battle of Edessa. The plague and defeat sorely depleted the defenses of the eastern provinces, but fortunately the Palmyrene client state under Odenathus stepped into the breach, albeit they would prove to be a bigger problem for the Romans soon.

Valerian never returned from his captivity, so at very least he lived out his days as a captive, possibly as a footstool to the Sassanid monarch Shapur. No, really – that was actually one of the tales told of him, indeed one of the better fates. There were other far more lurid fates attributed for him, with accounts of his death by Shapur forcing him to swallow molten gold (like the Parthians had done to the Roman general Crassus) or from being flayed alive. The latter even had the Persians add insult to injury by stuffing the skin as a grisly trophy in their temple – until it was retrieved for cremation and burial by the Romans after a subsequent victory over the Persians to avenge Valerian’s defeat.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE-SAVER – well he tried, anyway, arguably holding the line long enough for his successors to save it.

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(15) JULIAN –
CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY
(361 – 363 AD: 1 YEAR 7 MONTHS 23 DAYS)

“Thou has conquered, Galilean”

Julian the Apostate – or as fellow Julian fans call him, Julian the Philosopher. Opinions tend to be divided on Julian, then and since, although I fall on the positive side of that divide.

I was tempted to nominate Julian for a wildcard entry in my top ten, in a similar romantic vein to Majorian for emperors fighting against the odds. Where Majorian strove to restore the western empire as its last great emperor, Julian strove to restore classical paganism as the last pagan emperor – and a large part of me wishes he had succeeded. It’s all I can do to stop myself yelling “This isn’t over! Pan isn’t dead! Julian the Apostate was right!” in churches.

It is his status as the last pagan emperor and his attempted revival of classical paganism for which he is best known – and definitively known, with subsequent Christians remembering him as apostate for having ‘abandoning’ Christianity.

Julian particularly appeals to modern sensibilities in religion, as he mostly dealt with Christianity not by persecution to which the imperial state had so often resorted in the past, but by mockery and tolerance, the latter essentially as a form of freedom of religion, albeit with preferential treatment for paganism as the official state religion. He even went so far as to allow the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple as a counterweight to Christianity – or as modern critics might say, to troll it – although nothing came of such plans, due to the cost and time involved.

However, Julian didn’t simply strive to restore classical paganism but also the classical principate of the empire, although the two were probably intertwined – in essence, he was a traditionalist, looking back to the golden age of Rome in the second century, the Rome of the Five Good Emperors, and sought to restore it through its leading institutions. In particular, Julian was an admirer of Marcus Aurelius and sought to emulate him, above all in a philosophical approach to being emperor. And as proverbial philosopher-kings go, Julian did pretty well – if anything, he erred on the side of being too philosophical.

What restoring the principate meant was eschewing the dominate – that autocratic style of government instituted by Diocletian and apotheosized by Constantine – and instead seeking to revive the principate, with the ideal rule as princeps or first among equals, engaging with the Senate and citizenry. He saw the royal court and imperial bureaucracy that had proliferated under the dominate as “inefficient, corrupt, and expensive”, dismissing thousands of “servants, eunuchs, and superfluous officials”. This too perhaps appeals to modern sensibilities.

Julian’s attempts at the revival of classical paganism and principate – as well as his rise to emperor and reign in general – are even more impressive as somewhat like Claudius he had to hide behind feigning or at least presenting harmlessness to the reigning members of the Constantinian dynasty and loyal faithfulness to the Christianity they had adopted. A nephew of Constantine the Great, Julian was one of the few members of the imperial family to survive the purges as a child in the reign of his cousin Constantius II but was effectively raised under house arrest or close supervision by Constantius, albeit in reasonably privileged circumstances and obviously with good education, given his philosophical studies and writings. Indeed, Julian is the emperor for whom we have the most surviving writings by his own hand.

Ultimately however, as you can see, I did not rank Julian in my top ten or even my top tier of emperors. One thing that has to count against such a ranking is the brevity of his reign – less than two years – which also probably undermined his attempts to restore classical paganism, reversed by his successors. If he had reigned a similar length to Constantius II or the emperors he sought to emulate like Marcus Aurelius, he might well have ranked higher and achieved more for the revival of classical paganism – but alas, it was not to be.

In fairness, like other emperors with similarly brief reigns in these special mentions, the brevity of his reign is offset by it being the capstone of his achievements prior to and resulting in him becoming emperor – in particular, as junior emperor or caesar for the western empire under Constantius II. Julian proved himself a capable military commander and tactician against Germanic barbarian raids into the empire, notably the Alamanni and Franks – firstly defending and repelling them from the empire, and then campaigning beyond the Rhine into German territory to subdue them.

Again, this is particularly impressive, as due to his background he had no prior military experience and instead acquired it through study of military texts or on the ground in campaign – the former depicted humorously by Dovahatty with Julian as a rare transformation from wojak to chad by sheer power of will.

Indeed, Julian did a little too well as junior emperor or caesar – with his troops declaring him augustus or emperor, he luckily averted civil war with Constantius II only through the fortunate timing of the latter’s death from illness, with the added bonus that the latter had to recognize there was no one other than Julian to succeed him as emperor.

Back to my ranking, apart from the brevity of his reign, there’s also the small fact that he did not succeed in restoring classical paganism, with all his attempts to do so reversed by his successors. Somewhat similarly to Majorian with the fall of the western Roman empire, it is not clear whether Julian could have decisively reversed the substitution of Christianity for classical paganism as the imperial religion, although a longer reign would almost certainly have stalled it for a time.

I’ve seen all sorts of contradictory arguments for this – ranging from Julian being too hardcore towards Christianity (not having “a little less venom and a little more tact”) to not being hardcore enough. Julian may well have added to this with a few apparent contradictions of his own – he was very philosophical in his approach to paganism, leaning heavily into Neo-Platonism, but there was also his participation in animal sacrifice, unpopular even among pagans.

Personally, the contradiction strikes me is his asceticism, reminiscent of Chesterton’s jibe at ascetic atheism in The Song of the Strange Ascetic – “of them that do not have the faith, and will not have the fun.” I mean, if you’re going to go pagan, go Dionysian or go home.

However, mostly I think that, again similarly to the situation of Majorian (and the Germanic states or influence within the western empire), that Christianity was simply too entrenched within the empire to be removed. For one thing, Christianity had an intellectual unity that the more amorphous paganism did not – indeed, there wasn’t really a coherent pagan ‘religion’ comparable to Christianity – as well as an institutional strength quite apart from its beliefs, as sociologist Rodney Stark has opined. Even Julian implicitly conceded the latter, as he sought to remodel pagan religion on Christianity, notably in its priesthood and public charity.

Spectrum may well sum it up best (ranking Julian in similar position at 25th best emperor before 395 AD, albeit his cutoff for good emperors is higher) – “Great tactical dude, effective administrator, stupid-ass ideals – Christianity had some forty-odd years entrenching itself into the imperial fold. Did this guy think it was just going to get away, because he wanted it to?”

However, he was not quite the “great tactical dude” in the other fact that must detract from a higher ranking – and which also led directly to the brevity of his reign – namely his defeat and death in his ambitious campaign against the Sassanid Persians. It’s also why I’ve decided to rank him just lower than Lucius Verus and Carus, who after all led successful campaigns against the Parthians and Sassanids respectively.

He almost certainly would have been better off avoiding the campaign altogether but was another Roman undone by dreams of Alexander, albeit with the solid domestic motive of shoring up the support of the eastern army he had inherited from Constantius II. His tactical sense served him well enough at the outset of the campaign, which was initially successful but foundered as the army found itself in that common predicament of having to retreat from lack of supplies under constant attack.

Tactical skill born out of a textbook approach to military affairs and emulation of the past may have been all well and good against German barbarians, but the Persians were another matter, with the Sassanids and their scorched-earth tactics being very different from the Achaemenids of Alexander’s time or even the Parthians of Trajan’s. To the end however, Julian did not lack for personal courage – dying from a wound inflicted when he rushed out without his armor to pursue a Sassanid raid on the Roman camp.

RANKING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
RATING: EMPIRE-BASER (or perhaps would-be restorer would be more apt?)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(14) CARUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(282 – 283 AD: 10 MONTHS)

My special mention entry as Crisis of the Third Century counterpart mirroring Lucius Verus, with the similar standout achievement of his (brief) reign as a victorious campaign against the Persians, albeit taking up the campaign prepared by his predecessor Probus.

Indeed, it could be said he outdid Lucius’ Parthian War – as the active leader of a campaign by an empire still recovering from the nadir of the Crisis of the Third Century against the tougher Sassanids, albeit the Sassanids were beset by their own internal crisis and conflicts elsewhere. Also, prior to his Persian campaign and en route to it, he inflicted severe defeats on the Sarmatian and Quadi barbarian invaders at the Danube.

It might even be said that he equalled or even exceeded Trajan’s campaign against the Parthians (although the full extent of his success is unclear from the surviving sources) – annexing Mesopotamia, sacking the Persian royal city of Ctesiphon, and marched his soldiers beyond the Tigris river, thereby avenging all previous defeats of the Romans by the Sassanids and receiving the title of Persicus Maximus as well as his former Germanicus Maximus.

He was then reportedly struck by lightning – so probably assassinated – and like the similar conquests by Trajan, his Persian conquests were immediately relinquished by his successor and mediocre son, Numerian.

He gets some black marks for his possible complicity in the death of his predecessor Probus, his ‘dynasty’ consisting of his mediocre son Numerian and terrible son Carinus, and his final suppression of (and “haughty conduct towards”) the authority of the Senate (in notable contrast to his predecessors Tacitus and Probus).

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

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

(13) LUCIUS VERUS –
NERVA-ANTONINE / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS (CO-EMPEROR WITH MARCUS AURELIUS)
(161 – 169 AD: 7 YEARS 11 MONTHS)

The mad lad or party boy adoptive brother and co-emperor of Marcus Aurelian everyone forgets about when they talk about the Five Good Emperors. In the words of Spectrum – “Think of a Nero who can actually put in some work and you pretty much get this guy”, albeit I think that’s overstating the comparison with Nero.

Notably, the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus as co-emperors was the first time the Roman Empire was ruled by more than one emperor at the same time – an arrangement that would become increasingly common and indeed institutionalised in the later history of the empire.

His critics declaimed his luxurious lifestyle, literally partying it up almost everywhere he went – staying up till dawn feasting, gambling, and cavorting with actors and other disreputable favorites, including hot ‘low-born’ women such as his mistress Panthea.

In fairness, this is exactly how I would spend my time as Roman emperor and it is at least amusing to picture the Dionysian Lucius partying it up while his straightlaced Stoic adoptive brother Marcus Aurelius stands off to the side tut-tutting it all – with Lucius yelling out as he takes body shots off a hot slave girl, “Meditate this, Marcus!”.

The majority – and standout achievement – of his reign was his direction of yet another Roman war against Parthia. Apparently, “it was decided that Lucius should direct the Parthian War in person” as “he was stronger and healthier than Marcus…more suited to military activity” but that was somewhat belied by Marcus’ conduct of the Marcomannic Wars and suggestive of ulterior motives – “to restrain Lucius’s debaucheries, to make him thrifty, to reform his morals by the terror of war, to realize that he was an emperor”.

Predictably, he partied his way there, “lingering in the famed pleasure resorts of Pamphylia and Cilicia”, ultimately arriving at Antioch to manage the campaign and of course partying it up there. One can’t help but feel the accusations of glamorous lifestyle are overstated – as he had to whip the Syrian legions up into shape, being “on foot at the head of his army as often as on horseback” and personally inspecting “soldiers in the field and at camp, including the sick bay”.

Anyway, the war was a Roman victory, regaining control in Armenia and territory in Mesopotamia. Even if most of the success is credited to his subordinate generals (as it probably should be), he would hardly be the only emperor to rely on the victories of his generals. Once again, the Parthian royal city of Ctesiphon was sacked by Romans – as well as the old Seleucid royal city of Seleucia, the sack of which was not as well received by his contemporaries and which I attribute it to yet another party gone too far. Lucius shared the titles Armeniacus, Medicus and Parthicus Maximus with Marcus Aurelius for the victories.

Unfortunately, the Parthian War did have one dire consequence for the Romans – the Antonine Plague which the Roman soldiers brought back with them, which spread to the wider population and weakened the empire, particularly the army which was worst affected.

Of course, the Antonine Plague wasn’t Lucius’ fault, but neither was he around for the worst of its consequences – he returned to Rome for two years, partying it up but performing his official duties, and saw some initial action in the Marcomannic Wars before dying of illness. The Senate deified him as the Divine Verus.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE-BASER

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

(12) GALLIENUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(253-268 AD: 15 YEARS – WESTERN EMPIRE AS CO-EMPEROR, THEN WHOLE EMPIRE)

“Don’t push me cause I’m close to the edge
I’m trying not to lose my head
It’s like a jungle sometimes
It makes me wonder how I keep from goin’ under”

That’s right – Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five’s The Message pretty much sums up the reign of Gallienus. One can easily imagine him rapping it, albeit with lyrics more contemporary to Rome – perhaps along the lines of Alemanni in the alley with a baseball bat.

Gallienus was a good emperor. It was just that he was faced with overwhelming circumstances that he largely inherited from his predecessors, none other than the height of the Crisis of the Third Century.

To quote Spectrum who similarly ranks him as a good emperor –
“He just happened to be caught up in a time when being good wasn’t enough. Gallienus is pretty much the definition of ‘Oh God, everything’s burning, everything’s on fire, and I’m just trying not to lose it!’…disease rampant, endless barbarian invasions, entire provinces seceding, and God knows how many usurpers. Under these circumstances, it’s a miracle he lasted fifteen years in power.”

Like Constantius II, he had a negative or mixed reputation, particularly among the Roman historians (although modern historians see him in a more positive light), hence my entry for him as the matching Crisis of the Third Century counterpart to Constantius – similarly attempting to hold the empire together against usurpers, civil war, and Germanic barbarian tribes, all while waging war with the Persian Sassanid empire in the east.

Of course, Constantius was more successful in that he held the empire together over a longer reign, but he faced less overwhelming circumstances or threats – and at fifteen years, Gallienus had the longest reign of any emperor during the Crisis of the Third Century, indeed one that compares quite well even to the reigns of other good emperors in better circumstances.

One could also propose other counterparts to Gallienus – Stilicho and Majorian also come to mind, with more similar fates to that of Gallienus. Indeed, Dovahhatty had Stilicho sigh that he’s feeling a lot like Gallienus right now with the crises faced by him.

I’ve seen a quip that Gallienus held the line, Claudius Gothicus turned the tide, and Aurelian beat the odds – a quip with which I tend to agree. On the other hand, one might snort – some line! He lost two thirds of the empire!

Two thirds that is, one third being the Gallic Empire that seceded in the west, and the other being the Palmyrene Empire that seceded in the east. However the latter is somewhat unfair to Gallienus. They may have been effectively independent, but during his reign the Palmyrenes were still loyal to Rome under their ruler Odaenathus and more limited in size. It was only after the death of Odaenathus – and Gallienus himself – that it became openly defiant under Zenobia and conquered Roman provinces, notably Egypt. Furthermore, Gallienus had little choice but to rely on the Palmyrenes to fight the Sassanid Persians after the Sassanids defeated and captured his father (and co-emperor). And choice or not, it seems a reasonable strategy, deflecting potential rebellion to your own defence (and effectively tallying up the losses on both sides as your wins) – and what’s more, it worked, defending the eastern provinces of the empire during his reign.

It was more his failure to win back the secession of the Gallic Empire which contributed to his negative reputation among Roman historians – with the Historia Augusta in particular implausibly presenting “him as a lover of luxury, who dressed in purple, sprinkled gold dust in his hair, and built castles of apples”.

Yes – he failed to win back the Gallic Empire led by the usurper Postumus, but it’s just that he had to deal with too many other usurpers and barbarian invasions at the same time. There’s a whole Wikipedia article titled Gallienus usurpers – and those are the ones we know about from a patchy historical record. Gallienus was the very definition of someone fighting on too many fronts against too many enemies with too few allies and too few forces – that last arising from an empire depleted in population and manpower by the Plague of Cyprian which raged during his reign.

I would venture to say that even the best emperors would have been hard pressed in those circumstances and all but a good emperor would have been completely overwhelmed.

Gallienus acceded to the throne as co-emperor of his father, effectively dividing rule of the western and eastern halves of the empire between them, with his father in the eastern empire waging war against the Sassanid Persians.

As it was, Gallienus successfully defended the Rhine and Danube borders from about 253 to 258, defeated the usurper Ingenuus in the Balkans, defeated an invasion of Italy to the outskirts of Rome itself by Alemanni and other Germanic tribes (safeguarding the empire from the Alemanni for another ten years), dealt with a Frankish invasion of Gaul and Hispania, faced the usurper Regalinus in the Balkans, became sole emperor when a Sassanid Persian invasion defeated and captured his father, dealt with the usurper Macrianus in the east, fought inconclusively against the Gallic Empire of the usurper Postumus, dealt with the usurper Aemilianus in Egypt, fought an invasion of the Balkans by Goths and other Germanic tribes, and fought the usurper Aureolus in Italy after Aureolus betrayed him and defected to Postumus.

And so it goes. More substantially, Gallienus is credited with military reforms to create a core of cavalry that could quickly respond to threats anywhere within the empire – cavalry that included as its commanders Claudius Gothicus and Aurelian, as well as being the impetus behind the Illyrian emperors who saved the empire.

In the end, however, it was too much like a jungle and Gallienus did indeed go under, assassinated by his troops as he besieged the usurper Aurelous in Italy.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE SAVER? Well perhaps empire preserver would be a better ranking, since he held the line for his successors to save it.

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(11) CONSTANTIUS II –
CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY (EASTERN EMPIRE THEN WHOLE EMPIRE)
(337 – 361 AD: 24 YEARS 1 MONTH 25 DAYS)

And now we come to some special mention matched pairings, in which one emperor is similar to or echoed by another emperor in the Crisis of the Third Century. Also special mentions that while good, drop down a tier from top-tier – often coinciding with a mixed or even negative reputation.

For Constantius II, I guess there was something to the name – there were three emperors with the name and they were all pretty decent. Granted, Constantius II wasn’t as good as the other two, which included his namesake grandfather and first Constantius. For that matter he wasn’t as good as his father Constantine the Great, although he was the only one of Constantine’s three sons worth a damn as emperor.

Constantius II has a mixed reputation but deserves his place among the good emperors for holding the empire together for almost two and a half decades, mostly in its eastern provinces but also the whole empire for about a third of his reign – despite his brothers fighting each other, usurpers, civil war, and Germanic barbarian tribes, all while waging war with the Persian Sassanid empire for most of his reign.

He and his brothers had succeeded their father as emperor, with Constantius reigning over the eastern third of the empire while his brothers Constantine II and Constans reigned over the western and middle thirds respectively. Constantius had played the leading role in doing the dirty work for their uncontested succession – the massacre of the princes, eliminating the other adult male members of the family as rivals to that succession.

His attention as eastern emperor was preoccupied foremost with constant warfare with the Persian Sassanids rather than the shenanigans of his brothers – Constantine II invaded Italy to usurp Constans but was defeated by Constans’s troops and killed instead, leaving only the two brothers maintaining an uneasy peace with each other until Constans was successfully usurped by the general Magnentius.

Constantius then fought one of Rome’s costliest civil wars, the civil war of 350-353 AD against Magnentius, defeating him at the decisive battle of Mursa Major in 351 AD, albeit the war dragged on until the final battle of Mons Seleucis in 353 AD. The battle of Mursa was one of the bloodiest battles in Roman history, bearing in mind that as a civil war the Romans lost soldiers on both sides. Contemporary writers lamented its losses as a disaster for the empire – with Eutropius opining those losses could have won triumphs from foreign wars and brought peace, while Zosimus believed they left the army so weakened that it could not counter barbarian incursions. Even modern academics have labelled the battle a pyrrhic victory for Constantius.

While perhaps an apt observation for civil war later that century and battles such as the Battle of Frigidus in 394 AD, it does seem overstated for Constantius – given that he successfully defeated the Alamanni at the Rhine frontier and the Quadi and Sarmatians across the Danube before having to turn his attention back to the east against a renewed Sassanid Persian threat. And for that matter, his junior emperor Julian was also able not only to defend the western empire but campaign across the Rhine, while Valentinian was able to robustly defend and campaign across the Rhine and Danube frontiers in his reign from 363 to 374 AD.

This negative observation of the civil war is mirrored by Wikipedia stating that Constantius was “unwilling to accept Magnentius as co-ruler”, an easy observation in hindsight, but it is difficult to see what else Constantius could have done or how his own position could have been secure if he had accepted Magnentius’ usurpation of his brother – and he demonstrated he was willing and able to compromise with usurpers where circumstances permitted, cutting a deal with another usurper Vetrantio (whose usurpation had effectively blocked further usurpation by Magnentius).

Anyway, his victory in the civil war left him sole ruler of the empire, although he appointed junior members of the far flung Constantinian family tree – whom had been children at the time of the massacre of the princes and thus avoided the purge – as junior emperor or caesar. Firstly Constantius Gallus in the eastern empire, who had to be, shall we say, written off, and then Julian in the western empire, who proved far more capable. Indeed, too capable, as civil war loomed between them but was fortunately averted when Constantius became ill and died, naming Julian as his successor for the whole empire.

RATING: 4 STARS****
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)
EMPIRE SAVER