But wait – there’s more Roman Empires!

As my usual rule, I have twenty special mentions for each top ten – and to my surprise, I was able to compile twenty special mentions for my Top 10 Roman Empires, as there was no shortage of claimants for succession to the Roman Empire. That is, there’s was shortage of polities or states claiming succession from the Roman Empire as a whole or from one of its western or eastern halves.

I might even have squeezed out some more – or at least a couple more, with the short-lived state of Dalmatia held by the surviving former emperor Julius Nepos until 480 AD, or the Despotate of the Morea holding out in revolt against the Ottomans until 1460.

“The continuation, succession, and revival of the Roman Empire is a running theme of the history of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. It reflects the lasting memories of power and prestige associated with the Roman Empire. Several polities have claimed immediate continuity with the Roman Empire, using its name or a variation thereof as their own exclusive or non-exclusive self-description. As centuries went by and more political ruptures occurred, the idea of institutional continuity became increasingly debatable”.

As the above quote indicates, the claimants to the succession of the Roman Empire reflected in my special mentions become increasingly tenuous, to the point of metaphor at best and delusions of grandeur at worst. Indeed, perhaps more than most of my special mentions, these special mentions might be regarded as something of an iceberg meme – that is, my iceberg of the succession of the Roman Empire, starting with more straightforward entries towards at the outset of the iceberg above the surface and going on to wilder or more esoteric entries as we go beneath the surface to the bottom of the iceberg.

Not surprisingly then, my god-tier first special mention is something of an exception to the other claimants to succession from the Roman Empire, albeit still involving a line of succession with the empire, while my god-tier second special mention does involve a line of succession from the empire but in a unique sense.

My next top-tier three special mentions are for “the most enduring and significant claimants of continuation of the Roman Empire”.

My high-tier special mentions may not be as “enduring and significant” but at least could made their claims from a position of having control or possession of either Rome or Constantinople – or close enough for the purposes of the ranking.

And the balance of special mentions is where things get wild – as tends to be the case in my special mentions where I have some fun with the subject category and splash out with some wilder entries – hence their consistent wild-tier ratings.

(2) EASTERN ROMAN / BYZANTINE EMPIRE

(395-1453 AD)

Historians snubbed it as the Byzantine Empire, so as to avoid acknowledging it as the glorious continuation of the Roman Empire. It just stayed more to the east and called itself Greek after a certain point. But for convenience (as it’s shorter), I’ll keep using Byzantine rather than eastern Roman Empire.

There seems to be two recurring arguments among Roman history enthusiasts – whether one ranks the Roman Republic over the Roman Empire, and whether one ranks the Byzantine Empire over the Roman Empire. I’ll have a look at the former in my special mentions but there’s a solid argument to be made for ranking the Byzantine Empire over the classical Roman Empire.

Sure, the Byzantine Empire wasn’t as big as the Roman Empire. After its relatively brief glory days as half the former Roman Empire – or its briefer and even more glorious days when it took a damn good swing at reclaiming the western half under Emperor Justinian – it spent most of its time at about a quarter the Roman Empire. At best, that is – because it spent substantial amounts of time as not much more than its capital in Constantinople.

But for sheer endurance, it has to take the title from the Roman Empire, lasting for a millennium past the fall of the western half, including feats of rebounding from defeats that bordered on resurrection. More like Lazarus Empire, amirite?

And that endurance and those feats were achieved against a more formidable and seemingly eternal encirclement by enemies, from west and east, by land and sea – from which the Byzantines could rarely catch a break, except by soundly defeating one or more of those enemies, and usually not even then.

In the end however, the empire suffered one defeat too many – wounded, fatally as it turned out, from the Fourth Crusade that sacked Constantinople in 1204, although it resurrected itself even from that for two centuries. Alas, it simply lacked the scale of time or resources to see it through, particularly against a rising rival empire in its prime – the Ottoman Empire, which finally conquered Constantinople in 1453.

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

(3) WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE

(395-476 AD)

That “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, retreating to the breath of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world”.

And now we come to the Roman empire proper with its formal division into de facto separate eastern and western empires in 395 AD (although they still saw themselves as the one empire) – with the latter pretty much falling stillborn from that division, somehow limping through the 81 years of its sorry existence until the barbarians clubbed it on the head and put it out of its misery.

We’re a long way from the Rome that made the Mediterranean their Mare Nostrum, along with making everything else part of their Pax Romana. Hell, Rome wasn’t even the capital of the western empire from 402 AD – that was Ravenna and historians should really call it the Ravennan empire rather than add insult to the injury to the western empire’s ignominious decline.

Indeed, there’s been a video meme to this effect – with Ryan Gosling’s sad sack of a beaten character from Blade Runner 2049 standing in for the western empire, in contrast to Ryan Gosling’s exuberant showboating Ken from the Barbie film standing in for the eastern empire.

Or for that matter, a meme of that heartfelt scene from Avengers: Endgame with Thor back from the future seeing his mother one last time in the past – Freya as the Roman empire in the 2nd century saying sadly to Thor as the Roman empire from the 5th century “The future has not been kind to you, has it?”

I exaggerate for rhetorical effect, but it’s not hard to see the eastern empire abandoning the western empire as a hopelessly lost cause or an act of cutthroat triage, much like the western empire then did with Britain.

And perhaps I exaggerate the plight of the western empire, but not by much. While I tend to see the western Roman empire as doomed with just too many things coming together against it – not least too many barbarians – it might have at least endured longer or better than it did, but for two of the worst emperors in Roman history, compounded by the length of their reigns somehow enduring for most of it, 60 years or so between them.

I am of course talking about Emperors Honorius and Valentinian III, although they might as well have been the same emperor, given how uncannily similar they were – with each of them betraying the loyal subordinate who was the one holding things together and stabbing that man in the back, Stilicho for Honorius and Aetius for Valentinian III (literally for the stabbing in the back part), each with one of the two notorious sacks of Rome following shortly afterwards, the Visigoths for Honorius and the Vandals for Valentinian III.

On the other hand, there was also Emperor Majorian reigning from 457 to 461 AD – the empire’s last best hope for someone like Aurelian two centuries earlier to pull it out of its spiral of doom, as Majorian defeated all of Rome’s enemies he fought even in that twilight of the empire, until he too was betrayed and assassinated. After that, it was all downhill into the Dark Age, until the last western emperor was deposed in 476 AD.

Yet for all that, it still is what I see as the Roman Empire proper, even if much diminished. And as I observed in my Top 10 Empires, I just have a particular interest in empires holding the line against all odds as they decline and fall. And let’s face it – even as a shadow of its former self, I still see it as being able to take any of the others below it in the top ten, hence the ranking.

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

(4) GALLIC EMPIRE

(260-274 AD)

The second of two breakaway states as the Roman Empire broke into three parts during the Crisis of the Third Century – in the western part of the Roman Empire as the Palmyrene Empire took over the eastern part.

The Gallic Empire – the name given to it by modern historiography – was established by a Roman commander (of German origin) Postumus in 260 in the wake of barbarian invasions of Gaul and instability in Rome. At its height it included Roman territories in Germania, Gaul, Britannia and Hispania.

There followed a series of contenders for it, resulting in and becoming more heated after Postumus’ assassination in 269, albeit with the ’empire’ losing much of its territory in the process (particularly Hispania) – before a certain restorer of the world, Emperor Aurelian, took all of it back at the Battle of Chalons in 274, because he was just that good.

In fairness to the Gallic Empire, they largely kept to themselves as a de facto separate state, not attempting to invade Italy or otherwise seize the central Roman administrative apparatus.

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

(5) PALMYRENE EMPIRE
(270-273 AD)

And now we come to the biggest usurper states of all, during the Crisis of the Third Century when the Roman Empire split into three, with two breakaway empires at either end of it, west and east.

The Palmyrene empire was the more dangerous of the two, since it seized most of the wealthier eastern part of the empire, including the empire’s breadbasket in Egypt.

Ironically, the Palmyrene empire originated from the city of Palmyra (now in modern Syria) which while styling itself as a kingdom loyally defended the eastern borders of the Roman Empire from the Sassanid Persians, under its king Odaenathus, who defeated the Persians in 260 AD.

For his loyalty to and defense of the Roman Empire, he was rewarded with the position of Governor of the East, holding the highest political and military authority in the region, superseding that of the Roman provincial governors.

Unfortunately, he and his son were assassinated, so the Palmyrene kingdom now came under the control of its queen, widow of Odaenathus – one of those femme fatale figures to the empire that so alarmed Rome like Cleopatra before her, Zenobia.

Although it’s somewhat sad that Cleopatra eclipses Zenobia in popular imagination, since the shade of Cleopatra wishes she was Zenobia – Zenobia did what Cleopatra could only dream of doing, forge an eastern empire as a genuine rival to Rome.

Zenobia trod lightly at first, but her Palmyrene kingdom slowly transformed into the Palmyrene empire in open rebellion against the Roman Empire and conquering much of the latter’s eastern territory from 270 AD, although historians debate to what extent that rebellion was aimed at Palmyrene independence or more ambitiously at the imperial throne in Rome itself.

And she might have succeeded, certainly in the former and perhaps even the latter, had she not been opposed by the legendary restorer of the world himself, Emperor Aurelian, who made short work of her Palmyrene Empire in 272, as well as a brief revival of its rebellion under her successors in 273

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

(6) BRITANNIC EMPIRE

(286-296 AD)

Arguably, the most dubious empire in this top ten – Wikipedia refuses to dignify it as such and calls it the Carausian revolt instead, but I have a soft spot for it, if only for the name history has given it on occasion as the Britannic Empire.

However, it’s more than the name. Although its founder, Roman naval commander Carausius did not claim succession from the Roman empire but only sought to usurp part of it for himself, that part did endure for ten years or so, which is pretty impressive even by the standards of some more substantial usurpers on this list.

Also, you have to admire his audacity, which at another time or in other circumstances might have paid off – foremost among those circumstances perhaps being that his loyalist Roman opponent was the glorious Constantius, father of the even more glorious Constantine the Great.

Carausius had risen through the ranks from humble origins and was appointed to naval command in Gaul, tasked to clear the English Channel of Frankish and Saxon pirates or raiders. Instead, he collaborated with them to enrich himself – or so he was accused of doing, being sentenced to death for it. In his most audacious move, he responded with the ultimate defence – declaring himself emperor over Britain and northern Gaul.

And he had substantial forces for his empire – his own fleet of course, augmented by new ships he had built. In addition, he not only had the three legions stationed in Britain, but a legion he had commandeered in Gaul, a number of foreign auxiliary units, a levy of Gaulish merchant ships, and barbarian mercenaries.

Given such forces, it might be said that he had reasonable prospects – particularly if he had confined himself to Britain, with its more defensible position combined with naval power. To me, his biggest mistake might have been biting off more than he could chew with northern Gaul as well – where his forces were readily defeated by those of Constantius in 293, which prompted his assassination by his subordinate Allectus, who fared no better when Constantius invaded and retook Britain itself.

It might also be said that Carausius was a man before his time – and after it, with the misfortunate timing of pulling his stunt at just the wrong time. Had he been around to pull this stunt during the Crisis of the Third Century, it might have paid off – and he might have pulled it off for good if he’d been around to do it when Emperor Honorius was prepared to abandon Britain altogether, with the end of Roman imperial rule traditionally dated to 410 AD.

There was just something about Britain that inspired Roman usurpers. Governor of Britain Clodius Albinus took his shot at usurping the imperial throne in the so-called Year of Five Emperors. Another imperial usurper, Magnus Maximus also raised the standard of revolt from Britain in the fourth century – and after elevating two disappointing usurpers, the Roman army in Britain chose one of its soldiers to be yet another claimant to the throne as Constantine III in 407 AD. He actually did reasonably well for a usurper, taking the legions from Britain and setting up shop in Gaul in such a way Emperor Honorius was forced to recognize him as co-emperor from 409 to 411, until Honorius had a competent general to take a swing at him.

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

(7) DOMAIN OF SOISSONS

(457-486 AD)

In the fifth century, the western Roman Empire fell and all Gaul was conquered by German tribes. All? One small province of Romans remained, known to history as the Kingdom or Domain of Soissons.

Yes – it’s Asterix but replayed for real with a Roman province holding out in Gaul against the Germans. What can I say? I’m a romantic – and I have a soft spot for stories of lost legions, let alone whole holdout provinces.

The Domain of Soissons originated in 457 when the empire’s last best hope for a figure like Aurelian to pull it out of its doom, Emperor Majorian, appointed Aegitus as military commander or magister militum of Roman Gaul. Alas, the empires last best hope was not to be – as like Aurelian, Majorian was stabbed in the back, but unlike Aurelian, before he was able to save the empire.

Aegitus however kept a small part of that hope alive, as he and his son Syagrius maintained their rule in a remnant of Roman Gaul against the Visigoths and the Franks, even beyond the fall of the empire itself in 476, until finally defeated and conquered by the Franks in the Battle of Soissons in 486.

The Domain of Soissons even took a couple of shots at succeeding to the helm of the western Roman Empire – first, according to one writer, by threatening that empire with an invasion of Italy, and second, rejecting the rule of the barbarian king Odoacer in Italy by sending a messenger to the eastern Roman Emperor to claim the succession of the western Roman Empire for itself. Sadly but perhaps realistically, the eastern Roman emperor chose to offer legitimacy to Odoacer instead.

After that, the Domain of Soissons cut all ties with Italy and had no further recorded contact with the eastern Roman empire, although continuing to maintain that it was merely governing a Roman province.

Eterna Roma!

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

(8) EMPIRE OF NICAEA

(1204-1261 AD)

First in the trinity of residual successor states to the eastern Roman Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204 – as the one that actually put its money where its mouth was for its claim as the legitimate successor of the empire.

Aptly enough perhaps for its conventional historiographic title of the Nicene Empire, echoing the Nicene Creed similarly named for Nicaea – although historians sadly missed out on the opportunity for it to be known as the Nice Empire.

For that matter, historians missed out on the opportunity for it to be known as the revenant Roman Empire. It did more than succeed the empire – it clawed the empire back from the grave, reclaiming Constantinople in 1261 in an amazing feat of resurrection, but like all revenants it wasn’t ever quite the same.

Credit for that feat goes to the final imperial dynasty, the Palaiologos dynasty, as founded by its first and best emperor, Michael VIII Palaeologus – although credit might also go the preceding Laskarid dynasty that had founded and sustained the Nicene Empire essentially from scratch.

Calling the restored eastern empire a revenant might be a little unfair – after all, it endured for about two centuries, albeit ultimately dwindling to little more than the city of Constantinople itself but with some reversals of fortune or rebounding before that. With a little more breathing space and a lot more luck – as well as fewer enemies and of course fewer of those interminable Byzantine civil wars always at the worst possible time – it might have rebounded more or at least endured longer.

Alas it was not to be – although I tend to think it was always doomed to fall to the Ottomans, as almost everyone else did at that time, with a few notable exceptions.

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

(9) EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND & PRINCIPALITY OF THEODORO

(1204-1461 / 1475 AD)

One of the three major residual successor states to the eastern Roman Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204 – and the one with coolest alternative name, the Trapezuntine Empire.

(Which always prompts to my mind images of the Trapezoid Empire, itself prompted by that pyramid scheme in The Simpsons protesting that their model was more of a trapezoid).

Like the other two vestigial states, it claimed to be the legitimate successor of the eastern Roman Empire – but pushed that claim the least of the three of them, preferring to do its own thing on the Black Sea coast and peacefully abandoning its claim in 1281 or so by treaty with the state that did succeed in claiming back the empire.

Interestingly, the Trapezuntine Empire was formed before the fall of Constantinople, essentially as a descendant of the last truly great imperial dynasty took the opportunity presented by the encampment of Crusaders outside Constantinople for a military adventure to found his own empire, in alliance with the kingdom of Georgia.

Before that, Trebizond had a long history of doing its own thing even when part of the Roman empire and the Trapezuntine Empire just carried on that history, only more so through the wealth of its trade and pimping out its princesses famed for their beauty.

And there must be something to that foreign policy of bling and booty as Trebizond survived longest among the eastern Roman successor states (setting aside the residual Serbian or Italian dependency that was in Epirus), outlasting the fall of Constantinople until it too was besieged and conquered by the Ottomans in 1261.

Even then, its bizarro Byzantine offshoot in a sliver of Crimea, the Principality of Theodoro, lasted after 14 years until it too fell to the Ottomans in 1475.

RATING: 4 STARS****

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)