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

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(1) WORST: CALIGULA –

JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(37-41 AD: 3 YEARS 10 MONTHS 6 DAYS)

“Would that the Roman people had but one neck”

Ah – Caligula, dreaming of choking out all Rome, the archetype of legendary cruelty and depravity as well as that of the capricious and insane tyrant, so much so that there is a trope of the Caligula named for him (and we all know the type, depressingly frequent in history and culture).

Cue the gag for Caligula learning his capriciousness from Tiberius in Capri.

As I said for Nero, what can I say? You can’t argue with the Gospel of Suetonius, or the Revelations of Bob Guccione in his 1979 Caligula film. Or with the Gospel of Robert Graves which follows Suetonius, or the Revelations of Judge Dredd with Caligula as its Chief Judge Cal in The Day the Law Died.

Also, as I said for Nero, while there may be some issues with the accuracy of sources, particularly the more lurid details recorded by Suetonius, there’s just too much insane smoke for there to have not been an insane fire.

Speaking of Suetonius, if you only read one chapter from Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars (and it is available free online), then that should be his chapter on Caligula. It’s a hoot! Although I say that from the safe distance of two millennia as well as from Rome itself, because I wouldn’t put it past his ghost or ghoul to get me.

Caligula of course wasn’t his name, but his nickname – uncannily similar to Caracalla subsequently, for an item of clothing worn by each while cosplaying as a soldier, although in Caligula’s case it was his mother cosplaying him as a child in army camps and for his boots rather than a cloak. That’s right – his nickname translates as “Little Boots” or “Bootsy”, which is adorable until he grows up to become emperor.

And you don’t want to make Caligula emperor – you wouldn’t like him when he’s emperor.

Although the sources suggest that people initially did like him as emperor, because among other things, he seems to have ruled well for the first six months until falling sick – “upon recovering, Caligula had permanently lost his hair and apparently his mind”. Or as he perceived it, he had become a divine being. And who’s to say? I can well imagine that’s exactly how a divine being might act when trapped in a mortal form – particularly the divine beings from classical mythology, as it’s how they act a lot of the time. After all, only a god could be that crazy and get away with it.

Anyway, all this sadly suggests that he might have been decent but for sickness making him insane. Or not, I have my doubts – and I note the Gospel of Robert Graves, a.k.a I, Claudius, has him as somewhat psychopathic from the outset.

It’s all there in the sources, particularly Suetonius, which “focus upon his cruelty, sadism, extravagance, and sexual perversion” – “committing incest with his sisters, sending his army against the sea after declaring war on the ocean god Neptune and having them stab the waves and collect shells as booty, marrying a woman who was 9 months pregnant so he wouldn’t have to wait for an heir (whether or not it was his is unclear), using a tax hike upon the birth of his daughter to provide gold for him to roll around in, and wanting to make his favorite horse a consul”.

Also arbitrarily confiscating property in increasingly outrageous for his own spending, punishing citizens for being handsome or having more hair than him, and opening up his palace as a brothel. Actually, I’m with him on that last one.

Indeed, Caligula was so over the top insane that it sometimes seems to be parody or epic trolling – Caligula would rock it on Twitter X.

I can’t resist quoting The Caligula trope on TV Tropes, given how well it encapsulates, well, THE Caligula:

“The Caligula will be wildly irrational, violently moody, extremely debauched, will never tolerate being told anything they don’t want to hear, and are probably afflicted with a god complex. In short, they will be a Psychopathic Manchild with the power of life or death over everyone whom they can reach. They may be a sexual deviant, or they might take pleasure in the pain and suffering they cause. They may indulge in renaming cities or even the entire country after themself or throwing out increasingly ridiculous decrees with brutal punishments in store for anyone who breaks them. Whatever form the madness takes, one thing is certain: to do anything the Caligula finds displeasing is to inevitably be dragged off to a grisly death or worse. Of course, any number of things might trigger their rage, and they might even decide on a whim to punish those who have not done anything at all”.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (WORST-TIER)

EMPIRE DEBAUCHER

MAXIMUS:

Well unless you count Neptune. Caligula should have had a triumph with all the shells

DAMNED:

No formal damnatio memoriae but history has damned him

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON:

Spectrum ranks him as the second worst emperor (prior to 395), with Elagabalus as the worst (as a combination of the worst traits of Caligula and Nero)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome IX: Augustus

(1) BEST: AUGUSTUS

JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(27 BC – 14 AD: 40 YEARS 7 MONTHS 3 DAYS)

THE Roman emperor – the first and best emperor, the definitive and archetypal emperor.

The most august emperor. Dare I say it, the most Augustus of emperors, or rather, Augustus of Augustuses, since all emperors were titled Augustus for his title (not to mention the eighth month of the year) or Caesar for his adoptive family name.

Augustus is commonly nominated as the best or top emperor and I’m not about to dissent from that. It’s a common nomination for a reason. The Roman Senate themselves routinely invoked him as the first of their two benchmarks or gold standards when inaugurating new emperors. I’ve already referred to the second part of this invocation in reference to Trajan, but of course the full phrase also invoked Augustus – felicior Augusto, melior Traiano, may you be “luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan”. Luckier or more fortunate that is, with the connotation of divine fortune that favored Augustus. And since the Senate deified Augustus, consistent with the imperial cult he cultivated (heh), he made his own divine fortune.

Caesar Augustus – born Gaius Octavius and also known as Octavian – instituted the Roman Empire itself, characterized by the imperial peace, the Pax Romana or Pax Augusta. The grandnephew of Julius Caesar and named in Caesar’s will as his adopted son and heir, he inherited Caesar’s name, estate, and the loyalty of Caesar’s legions.

He formed the Second Triumvirate with Mark Antony and some other guy no one remembers (Lepidus) to defeat the assassins of Caesar. The Triumvirate effectively divided the Republic between them as a duumvirate of Octavian and Antony, with the former in control of its western provinces and the latter its eastern provinces. Octavian then famously fought and defeated Antony in the latter’s alliance (and romance) with Cleopatra, taking Egypt from de facto Roman client state to province.

With Octavian as sole ruler of the Republic, he adopted the title by which he has thereafter been known (and used to honour his imperial successors) – Augustus. And also Princeps or First Citizen (Princeps Civitas), which has come to denominate the Principate, the system of imperial rule instituted by him and which endured for two centuries until Diocletian’s Dominate. That system essentially involved Augustus maintaining the façade or formal appearance of the Republic over the reality of imperial authority and institutions of empire, hence the modesty of the Princeps title.

And having transformed the Republic into an empire, he dramatically enlarged the empire – annexing Egypt of course in his defeat of Anthony and Cleopatra, but also conquering northern Hispania (modern Spain and Portugal), the Alpine regions of Raetia and Noricum (modern Switzerland, Bavaria, Austria, Slovenia), and Illyricum and Pannonia (modern Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia). He also extended the borders of the province of Africa (the former territory of Carthage), peacefully converted the client state of Galatia (part of modern Turkey but with Gauls!) into a Roman province, and added Judea to the province of Syria as a recurring source of unforeseen Roman imperial woes, not to mention Christianity.

In other words, he sealed up the Mediterranean under Roman supremacy (not to mention Italy’s alpine buffer), making the Mediterranean their b*tch – or mare nostrum as they called it. Not so much Germany though, with Augustine famously mourning the defeat and loss of three legions under their commander Varus in the Battle of Teutoberg Forest – “Quintili Vare, legiones redde! “(“Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!”).

Oh well – even the greatest can’t win them all. However, it is a convenient segue to a comparison between Augustus and Julius Caesar. Caesar may well have been more charismatic than Augustus and definitely was a greater military leader, but I would say that Augustus obviously had greater political acumen than Caesar – given that the latter’s ambitions provoked his own assassination while the former’s created the empire. And fortunately Augustus could rely on the skill of his military commanders to compensate for his lack of skill – foremost among them Marcus Agrippa, who can lay claim to being among the best Roman military leaders.

After that comparison to Julius Caesar, I can’t resist quoting Dovahhatty’s comparison of Augustus to Alexander the Great (upon him visiting the latter’s tomb, where Dovahhatty has Augustus scoff “Pfft – what a loser!”):

“For when Alexander became king, he was twenty. When Octavian was adopted by Caesar, he was nineteen. When Alexander took thirteen years to conquer the sh*thole of the East, Octavian took the same time to subdue the entire Mediterranean. And while Alexander’s empire disintegrated the nanosecond after he died, Octavian would lay the foundations for the greatest empire in human history”.

Beyond the frontiers of his empire, Augustus “secured the empire with a buffer region of client states and made peace with the Parthian Empire through diplomacy”. Within them, “he reformed the Roman system of taxation, developed networks of roads with an official courier system, established a standing army, established the Praetorian Guard as well as official police and fire-fighting services for Rome, and rebuilt much of the city during his reign”. As he famously said, he found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble.

Finally, the longevity of Augustus’s reign and its legacy to the Roman world should not be overlooked as a key factor in the success of the Roman Empire, if only because as Tacitus observed, the younger generation at his death in 14 AD (after his reign of over 40 years!) had never known anything else than his Principate.

But it wasn’t just that – “Augustus’s own experience, his patience, his tact, and his political acumen also played their parts. He directed the future of the empire down many lasting paths, from the existence of a standing professional army stationed at or near the frontiers, to the dynastic principle so often employed in the imperial succession, to the embellishment of the capital at the emperor’s expense. Augustus’s ultimate legacy was the peace and prosperity the Empire enjoyed for the next two centuries under the system he initiated. His memory was enshrined in the political ethos of the Imperial age as a paradigm of the good emperor. Every emperor of Rome adopted his name, Caesar Augustus, which gradually lost its character as a name and eventually became a title. The Augustan era poets Virgil and Horace praised Augustus as a defender of Rome, an upholder of moral justice, and an individual who bore the brunt of responsibility in maintaining the empire”

(By the way, if I was extending my top ten to emperors past 476 AD, the top five would remain the same. Basil II, Justinian and Heraclius would be in sixth to eighth place and I’d probably shuffle Valentinian out for Alexios I in ninth place, while placing the last emperor Constantine XI in my wildcard tenth place. That is probably over-ranking him, but I just can’t resist the symmetry of first and last emperors in first and tenth place. Besides, he chose to go out with the empire in a bang rather than a whimper – and that’s worth something, even a wildcard tenth place).

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD-TIER)

EMPIRE-MAKER

MAXIMUS:

Augustus didn’t claim any formal victory titles that I could find, but did hold three triumphs – for his conquest of Pannonia, for the naval victory against Cleopatra and Antony at Actium, and for the conquest of Egypt

DEIFICATION:

Divine Augustus!

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON: Exactly the same – top spot, as he also was in the ranking by Daily Roman Updates, but no surprise there.

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

(2) BEST: TRAJAN –

NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(98 -117 AD: 19 YEARS 6 MONTHS 10/14 DAYS)

The Optimus Prime of Roman emperors. No, really, as in the Senate gave him the title of Optimus or Optimus Princeps, “the best” or “the best emperor”, one of the two benchmarks or gold standards invoked by the Senate for every new emperor thereafter, wishing them to be better than Trajan…but none were (with the possible exception of Aurelian). A little like Jedi wishing may the Force be with you.

Everybody loved Trajan. The army, with whom he was popular as he had distinguished himself in military campaigns against the Germanic tribes. The Praetorian Guard, whose revolt had forced his predecessor Nerva to adopt him as heir and successor. The people. The Senate, who deified him after his death, and as I said, invoked him thereafter for new emperors.

“As an emperor, Trajan’s reputation has endured – he is one of the few rulers whose reputation has survived 19 centuries.”

“Even Christian historians saw him as a virtuous pagan, among other things for not persecuting them too hard during his reign (Catholic tradition holds that Pope Gregory I briefly raised Trajan from the dead in order to convert him). He is immortalized in Heaven in The Divine Comedy”.

He was a successful soldier-emperor, who took the Roman Empire to its greatest territorial extent by the time of his death – a greater area is argued on occasion for Septimus Severus, although that is not clear and just extended worthlessly further into the Saharan desert at most.

Famously, he extended the empire by the conquest of Dacia in his wars against it, and by his annexation of Mesopotamia, Armenia and Assyria as Roman provinces in his war against the Parthian Empire. Less famously, he seems to have quickly and quietly annexed the Arabian client kingdom of Nabataea, possibly because they were just signed up from his pure awesomeness because little else is recorded of it.

And his general Quietus suppressed a widespread revolt by the Jews in the eastern provinces that henceforth bore an adaptation of the name Quietus – the Kitos War, yet another of those recurring revolts by the Jews against the empire before Hadrian wiped Judaea and Jerusalem from the map.

It wasn’t just all conquest or war – he was also a philanthropic ruler, albeit at some cost in debasing the currency. He oversaw prolific building projects and social welfare policies.

May Trojan’s force be with you, indeed.

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

EMPIRE-MAKER

MAXIMUS:

Germanicus, Dacicus, Parthicus – and of course, Optimus or best

DEIFIED:

By the gods and divine Trajan, yes!

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON: Exactly the same, in second place – just as it was for Daily Roman Updates, and the Roman Senate for that matter.

Dovahhatty – Unbiased HIstory of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

(3) WORST: COMMODUS –

NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY

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

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. (Almost literally in the form of him devaluing the currency).

I mean, you have seen the gospel according to Ridley Scott, Gladiator, haven’t you? As Dovahhatty joked, the “historian Ridley Scott already debunked all this garbage”.

Yes, it’s – ahem – not entirely accurate to history, but it does capture the essence of Commodus, even if it is turned all the way up to eleven (and he didn’t actually murder his father Marcus Aurelius to succeed to the throne).

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 that 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 LARPing 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”.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (WORST TIER)

EMPIRE DEBAUCHER

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.

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON: Exactly the same, as third worst emperor…except we probably should add Honorius and Valentinian to the absolute bottom of the list, which would make him fifth worst emperor.

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

(3) BEST: AURELIAN –

NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

(270 – 275 AD: 5 YEARS 3 MONTHS)

Restitutor Orbis and Sol Invictus, the Restorer of the World and the Unconquered Sun.

“Flash

Ah-ah

Saviour of the universe

Flash

Ah-ah

He’ll save every one of us

Flash

Ah-ah

He’s a miracle

Flash

Ah-ah

King of the impossible”.

Really, I could just continue with the lyrics of Queen’s Flash Gordon theme song for the rest of this entry…and I will!

“He’s for every one of us

Stand for every one of us

He’ll save with a mighty hand

Every man, every woman, every child with a mighty Flash.

Flash

A-ah!

Flash

A-ah!

He’ll save every one of us.

Just a man, with a man’s courage

He knows nothing but a man

But he can never fail

No one but the pure in heart may find the golden grail

Oh-oh-oh

Oh-oh-oh-oh”

Aurelian, Aurelian, we love you

But we only have five years to save the Roman Empire!

It was the darkest depths of the Crisis of the Third Century, the Roman Empire was on the brink of doom as Germanic barbarians and Sassanid Persians rampaged deep within it, while the empire itself had broken into three parts, the western and eastern parts all but seceding or conquered by the Gallic Empire and Palmyrene Empire respectively.

And then Aurelian became emperor – “as emperor, he won an unprecedented series of military victories which reunited the Roman Empire after it had nearly disintegrated under the pressure of barbarian invasions and internal revolts…During his reign, he defeated the Alamanni after a devastating war. He also defeated the Goths, Vandals, Juthungi, Sarmatians, and Carpi. Aurelian restored the Empire’s eastern provinces after his conquest of the Palmyrene Empire in 273. The following year he conquered the Gallic Empire in the west, reuniting the Empire in its entirety.”

Or in the characteristic eloquence of Edward Gibbon, “every instant of that short period was filled by some memorable achievement. He put an end to the Gothic war, chastised the Germans who invaded Italy, recovered Gaul, Spain, and Britain out of the hands of Tetricus, and destroyed the proud monarchy which Zenobia had erected in the East on the ruins of the afflicted empire”.

All under the guise and wearing the mask of Sol Invictus, the divine Unconquered Sun. Yeah – that’s right, the same deity of Emperor Elagabalus, but cool and badass in battle from one end of the empire to the other rather than dirty dancing around an altar.

I can’t resist quoting Dovahhatty on Aurelian, as he transcends mere Youtube video and becomes art:

“The empire was now at the mercy of evil and chaos, enemies within and abroad, tearing it apart. And in these darkest of times, the greatest of all men arose…Aurelian. At the start of the crisis, he enlisted in the legions to serve Rome when she needed him most. Battle after battle, he defeated Rome’s enemies with talent and skill never seen before. Emperor after emperor he served, killing barbarians and traitors alike, always loyal and victorious.”

The preceding emperor chose Aurelian to be his successor on his deathbed – “With tears in his eyes, Claudius begged Aurelian to save Rome as its emperor with his last dying breath. For God and Empire, he put on the mask, marching on Italy and deposing the usurper Quintillus. When the Vandals dared invade his home, he marched back and slaughtered every last one of them. And as the Germans invaded Italy itself, he crushed their hordes against the ocean, denying them any mercy”.

“Once in Rome, he restored the economy from decadence, cleansing the city of all corrupt senators. To make Rome eternal, he ordered built the Aurelian walls, so that it would stand a thousand years more. After decades of terrorizing the Danube, Aurelian crushed the Goths and delivering justice to Cniva. For the empire’s sake, he evacuated the citizens of Dacia, strengthening the Danube against invasion”.

“Sailing east, Aurelian gathered his cavalrymen and slaughtered Zenobia’s army, making her flee away. Palymyra was then destroyed for all time, Zenobia captured before fleeing to the Sassanids”

“Returning west, he defeated Tetricus’ legions of traitors, making him bow again to the light of Rome. Restoring the empire from the brink of collapse, Aurelian was acclaimed Restitutor Orbis, the Restorer of the World…In only five glorious years, Aurelian had made Rome one empire with one emperor under one god”.

Sadly however, we come to Dovahhatty’s postscript – “Setting sail for the east, Aurelian engaged in one final campaign, seeking to destroy all of Rome’s enemies. But just as his unrivalled accomplishments made him a hero, so did it fill others with envy and resentment. As Aurelian built a world of good and order, their evil and chaos grew more and more threatened. Through lies they convinced themselves, a perfect man could not be allowed to exist. In the darkest of nights, the Praetorians gave in to their evil and committed their worst crime…the world is stilled”

Alas, that’s right – his reign was only for a “short period”, as he was betrayed and assassinated while on his final campaign to settle scores with the Sassanid Empire. But for the short duration of his reign – only five years, cut short by his untimely assassination – he might well be top entry.

Even so, but for Aurelian, the empire may well have fallen in the third century, instead of falling in the fifth as it did, with its eastern half enduring for a millennium beyond that. His reign may not have quite ended the crisis, but it saved the empire and came close enough to give his successors the opportunity to end it.

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER – OR IS THAT SOL INVICTUS TIER?)

EMPIRE-SAVER – THE GREATEST OF THEM ALL

MAXIMUS:

Gothicus Maximus, Germanicus Maximus, Parthicus Maximus. Hell – Maximum Maximus, Restitutor Orbis.

DEIFIED:

Of course!

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON: Similar, including that he would likely have taken out top spot with a longer reign, but Spectrum knocks him down a bit lower that I did for his brief reign, to seventh place. If I recall correctly, Daily Roman Updates ranked him exactly as I did in third place.

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.

“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.”

Arguably 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 one 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”.

RATING: 1 STAR*

F-TIER (WORST-TIER)

EMPIRE BREAKER

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.

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON:

Spectrum ranks Honorius separately as the worst western Roman emperor, but consistently states that he also ranks him as the worst emperor for all emperors. I’m inclined to agree, but while my three worst Roman emperors were not quite the empire breakers Honorius was, their legendary depravity trumps it for me.

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

(4) BEST: HADRIAN –

NERVA-ANTONINE DYNASTY / FIVE GOOD EMPERORS

(117 – 138 AD: 20 YEARS 10 MONTHS 29 DAYS)

The definitive Roman emperor, exceeded as such only by my top two entries.

That’s notable in that he did not add any conquests to the empire, but indeed withdrew from the conquests of his predecessor, particularly in Mesopotamia but to some extent in Dacia as well. Although the Romans themselves tended to esteem expansionism, Hadrian focused on the consolidation of the empire – “Hadrian preferred to invest in the development of stable, defensible borders and the unification of the empire’s disparate peoples”.

It is hard not to see that as the correct focus, as Hadrian presided over an empire at its peak strength and stability, without any adversary of real substance let alone rival or threat to it. Otherwise, it might have become overstretched (or more so) – and it’s possible that even his predecessor who had conquered Mesopotamia (from Persia) “may have thought his gains in Mesopotamia indefensible and abandoned them shortly before his death”.

As such, unlike other emperors in this top ten Hadrian did not even have to engage in any robust military action in defense of the empire – with one notable exception where he was very robust indeed with the one substantial adversary that revolted against the empire during his reign, which we’ll get to shortly.

However, Hadrian didn’t just sit on the empire’s laurels. He “also developed permanent fortifications and military posts along the empire’s border (limites, sl. limes) to support his policy of stability, peace and preparedness”, including the wall in Britain that famously bore his name. “Hadrian’s policy was peace through strength”, emphasised by discipline – “troops practised intensive, regular drill routines” and historian Cassius Dio “praised Hadrian’s emphasis on spit and polish as cause for the generally peaceful character of his reign”.

Fortifications weren’t all he built or rebuilt – Hadrian was famed for his building projects throughout the empire. To that end, Hadrian “travelled almost constantly throughout the empire” and “was to spend more than half his reign outside Italy”.

Hadrian was notoriously fond of Greece and the Greeks – the Historia Augusta opined he may have been “a little too much Greek” – and fond of a Greek in particular, the youth Antinous.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that but I would say that Hadrian deifying Antinous after the latter’s untimely death as a gay god was a step too far. Some men will literally apotheosize their dead catamite instead going to therapy.

The other notorious aspect of Hadrian’s regime was wiping Jerusalem and Judaea off the map in response to the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt. The Caledonian chieftain Calgacus as quoted (or concocted) by Tacitus had seen nothing yet when he said the Romans make a desert and call it peace – Hadrian showed how it was really done.

Hadrian was also initiated into in the Greek Eleusinian Mysteries – which I’d like to think of as the classical equivalent of the Illuminati, or perhaps just the actual Illuminati as who knows how far back that secret society and their conspiracies go…?

RATING: 4 STARS****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

EMPIRE BASER

MAXIMUS:

I don’t think he claimed any – putting down revolts isn’t quite the same thing

DEIFICATION:

O yes – although his successor had to insist on it to the Senate

SPECTRUM RANKING COMPARISON: Exactly the same in fourth place, as was the placement by Daily Roman Updates if I recall correctly.