Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(5) CARINUS –
NON-DYNASTIC (CARAN DYNASTY) / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(283-285 AD: 2 YEARS)

And it’s my other special mention for Crisis of the Third Century emperor who could arguably be swapped into the top ten worst emperors. The empire was almost out of the crisis but had to deal with this reprobate before he was defeated and killed in battle with a far better imperial claimant, Diocletian, whose reign finally ended the crisis.

Ironically, his father Carus was one of the people who had done their part to see an end to the crisis, hence ranking special mention in my good emperors, but the apple fell pretty far from the tree in this case. Given that he succeeded his father as emperor, that would technically make him part of a Caran dynasty but I’m counting it as non-dynastic because Carus disowned him on hearing how he ruled as co-emperor and declared an intention of replacing him with yet another better candidate (and special mention in my good emperors), Constantius. There was also his brother Numerian, who had accompanied their father on campaign against the Sassanid Persians (which saw both of them killed in succession) while Carinus had been appointed as co-emperor in the western empire.

“Carinus has the reputation of being one of the worst Roman emperors…dissolute and incompetent”.

“He indulged in all manner of extravagance and excess. He is said to have married and divorced nine different women during his short reign in Rome and to have made his private life notorious…to have persecuted many who he felt had treated him with insufficient respect before his elevation, to have alienated the Senate by his open dislike and contempt, and to have prostituted the imperial dignity with the various low entertainments he introduced at court”.

Despite (or perhaps because of) all his marriages, he was reputed to have been a little too…thirsty with the wives of his officers, which saw him ‘fragged’ by one such man at the Battle of Margus River against Diocletian. That and his army, which outnumbered that of Diocletian, deserted him to Diocletian.

RANKING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBAUCHER

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

(4) TREBONIUS GALLUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / CRISIS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
(251 – 253 AD: 2 YEARS 2 MONTHS)

The embodiment of the Crisis of the Third Century.

Honestly, I’m just impressed and surprised that this is the first emperor from the Crisis of the Third Century among my worst emperors, albeit as one of my special mentions you could arguably swap into the top ten worst emperors.

Indeed, for a period notorious for all the systemic problems of the empire – including those of imperial office – magnified to the point of the empire’s near collapse, as indicated by the very name historiographical convention has given it, it’s surprising how many capable emperors it did have, albeit more leading it out of the crisis than going in. I ranked Aurelian in third place in my top ten best emperors – but I also awarded special mention to Gallienus, Claudius Gothicus, Tacitus, Probus and Carus.

Yes – it certainly did have its bad emperors and we’re coming to them, but mostly they didn’t last long before being assassinated or killed by their successors, which is perhaps the archetypal defining trait of the period.

However, Trebonius Gallus stands out, both for the length of his reign as longer than most imperial claimants in this period, and that he embodied impotent and supine inactivity at a time of crisis. Well, not literally impotent, since he had a son whom he made co-emperor (but was killed by soldiers at the same time as his father, hence no Gallan dynasty) – but impotent in terms of doing anything useful.

As per Spectrum – “Here’s a tip if you’re the emperor during the Crisis of the Third Century. Don’t be completely useless. Actually respond to barbarian invasions. And please mind the debasement of the currency. Do anything, at all. Anything. Please. Just don’t be a useless NEET”.

And by debasement of the currency, I mean gutting it to make it almost completely useless, reducing it to less than a hundredth of its silver content.

He may even have been worse than useless, betraying his predecessor Decius for the latter to be defeated by invading Goths, at least according to contemporary rumors supported by the historian Dexippus. It’s probably not true but I prefer to believe it.

RANKING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-BREAKER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

(3) GETA –
SEVERAN DYNASTY
(211 AD: 10 MONTHS AND 15/22 DAYS)

Caracalla lite – as bad as his older brother, just not as good at being bad. Hence one of my special mention entries you could arguably swap into the ten worst emperors, similar to that other bad brother Constantine II.

The younger of two brothers who hated each other even before they became co-emperors upon their father’s death – technically Geta was emperor from 209, as Caracalla was from 198, but both were junior or subordinate emperors to their father, Septimus Severus, the first time the empire was ruled by multiple emperors.

That extended to dividing the palace between them, each with guards to prevent assassination by the other, and literally only meeting in the presence of their mother in attempts to mediate their rivalry. Roman historian Herodian asserted that their rivalry even extended to plans to split the empire between them in two halves (foreshadowing the empires’ subsequent division into eastern and western halves) but their mother sensibly quashed those plans.

Caracalla was more ruthless and hence got the jump on Geta, assassinating the latter under pretext of a ‘peace meeting’ in their mother’s quarters to deprive Geta of his guards, with Geta dying in her arms.

There’s not much more to say – as Spectrum pointed out, Geta ranks somewhat above Caracalla because history was spared Geta inflicting himself on it too long. “Apparently he (Geta) was just like him (Caracalla) and therefore terrible both as a person and as a ruler. He comes out as the better one just because he didn’t live as long so…yay?”

As usual, Gibbon summed it up best – “In the anguish of a disappointed father, Severus foretold that the weaker of his sons would fall a sacrifice to the stronger; who, in his turn, would be ruined by his own vices.”

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE-DEBASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIII: The Severan Dynasty

(2) DIDIUS JULIANUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FIVE EMPERORS
(193 AD: 2 MONTHS 4 DAYS)

Did…did you just buy the Roman empire, dude?

Yes – it’s the emperor who bought his position when the Praetorian Guard infamously auctioned it off after assassinating his predecessor Pertinax, thereby becoming the worst of the imperial claimants in the so-called Year of the Five Emperors (as well as a special mention that could arguably be swapped into the top ten worst emperors) and throwing the position of emperor itself into disrepute. “His blatant purchase of the throne shattered any illusions of normalcy in the Roman Empire”.

Which worked out as well as you’d expect for him, which is to say not at all, as three rival generals – you know, men with armies rather than money – laid claim to the imperial throne, with Septimus Severus winning out.

Of course, with such a brief ill-gotten reign, he had no lasting accomplishment or effect except one and even that sucked – devaluing the currency, reversing the reforms of Pertinax, such that he literally and figuratively debased the empire. You’d think he’d be smarter about money since that was the only quality that literally bought him the throne.

Historian Cassius Dio had him exclaim just prior to being killed by a soldier – “But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?”

Youtuber Dovahhatty answered those questions best. Firstly, listening to his wife, nagging him into buying the empire. (“Go and buy the empire! I’ve already bought our imperial regalia”). Secondly, by consequence himself.

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE DEBASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(1) VITELLIUS –
NON-DYNASTIC / YEAR OF THE FOUR EMPERORS
(69 AD: 8 MONTHS 1 DAY)

The fat bastard of the Roman Empire, third and worst of the four emperors in the so-called Year of the Four Emperors, the succession crisis following Nero and indeed coming close to out-Neroing Nero. Also first of my special mentions who could be swapped into my top ten worst emperors, but for lacking the same notoriety or endurance of reign.

In the words of Youtuber Spectrum, “you know, when the legacy you leave behind is nothing more than being a fat bastard, you know you were never a good emperor in the first place”.

The Gospel of Suetonius gave him the reputation of being an obese glutton, using emetics to throw up “so as to be able to indulge in banquets four times a day, and often having himself invited over to a different noble’s house for each one”

“One of the most famous of these feasts was offered Vitellius by his brother Lucius, at which, it is said, there were served up no less than two thousand choice fishes, and seven thousand birds. Yet even this supper he himself outdid, at a feast which he gave upon the first use of a dish which had been made for him, and which, for its extraordinary size, he called “The Shield of Minerva”. In this dish there were tossed up together the livers of pike, the brains of pheasants and peacocks, with the tongues of flamingos, and the entrails of lampreys, which had been brought in ships of war as far as from Parthia and the Spanish Straits.”

Edward Gibbon with his usual snark described him as “the beastly Vitellius” – “Vitellius consumed in mere eating at least six millions of our money, in about seven months. It is not easy to express his vices with dignity, or even decency”.

What else? Well he was an usurper – worse, a usurper of a usurper (of a usurper – the third time definitely wasn’t the charm in this case). He was appointed to his military command by Galba, who had claimed the throne after the assassination of Nero the year previously, which he then used to revolt against Galba – although he ultimately claimed the throne from Otho, who had assassinated Galba in the meantime.

He hung around with Tiberius in the latter’s decadent Capri retirement, befriended Caligula and flattered Nero. He even honored Nero as divine, “had Nero’s songs performed in public, and attempted to imitate Nero”.

He reputedly starved his mother to death (or alternatively granted her request for poison) to fulfil some BS psychic prediction that he would rule longer if his mother died first. Speaking of prophecies, his horoscope at birth so horrified his family that his father attempted to quash him from becoming consul.

Under him, “Rome became the scene of riot and massacre, gladiatorial shows and extravagant feasting”. When his nemesis came in the form of Vespasian, he even tried to chicken out with an abdication, with the imperial equivalent of leaving the keys in the ignition – leaving the insignia of empire at the Temple of Concord – but the Praetorian Guard were having none of that and forced him to return to the palace to get what was rightly coming to him. That is, dragged out from hiding, killed by the mob, and thrown into the Tiber, perhaps with his head paraded around Rome.

Good riddance.

RATING: 1 STAR*
F-TIER (WORST TIER)
EMPIRE DEBAUCHER

I’ve ranked the best – now it’s time for the rest.

I’m ranking all the Roman emperors (until 476 AD). I’ve ranked the thirty emperors I regard as good in my top ten best Roman emperors and twenty special mentions. I’ve ranked my top ten worst Roman emperors, but the Roman empire has so many more bad emperors to give – there were substantially more bad than good emperors, although the bad emperors tended to reign for shorter periods so it more than evens up by length of reign (otherwise you’d think the empire would have collapsed sooner).

My usual rule is twenty special mentions for a top ten – so here I have twenty special mentions for the balance of ‘bad’ emperors, but I’ve had to cram a number of emperors into some entries, albeit to a common denominator or theme.

I think you would have a reasonable argument to swap in any of my first eight special mentions for ‘bad’ emperors into my top ten worst emperors, except perhaps that they lack the name recognition, impact or endurance of reign of my top ten entries. After that, the special mentions become more borderline, right up to my last two special mentions as my dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors.

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XIX: The Fall of Rome

(3) JOANNES –
THE OTHER GOOD USURPER (THEODOSIAN DYNASTY: WESTERN EMPIRE)
(423-425 AD: 1 YEAR 6 MONTHS)

That’s right – I’m going there. I’m ranking Joannes as a good usurper, the only other good usurper in the classical empire apart from Vetranio.

Of course, it helps that the emperor he was usurping was none other than Valentinian III (and the Theodosian dynasty in general), one of the worst emperors (and the worst dynasty). Indeed, although I ranked him as fifth worst emperor, I’m open to arguments for him as the worst.

So Joannes would have been better than Valentinian III. Hell, Caligula’s horse would have been better than Valentinian III. It’s not a stretch to think that almost anyone else instead of Valentinian III would not only have been a better emperor, but meant that the western empire lasted longer.

And it’s not a stretch to think that Joannes would have been a decent emperor in his own right. At very least, one anticipates that he would have been better for Aetius (and hence the empire), reciprocating the loyalty that he was able to command from Aetius rather than assassinating Aetius as Valentinian did (after Aetius had saved the empire from Attila the Hun).

“The events of Joanne’s reign are as shadowy as its origins” due to our surviving historical records but his claim as western emperor occurred after that happy event for the western empire, the death of Honorius, when the eastern emperor Theodosius II did not immediately announce a successor.

Although it wasn’t so much his claim as such – in that brief bright shining light of opportunity, the patrician Castinus elevated him, a senior civil servant, as emperor. And at least according to the historian Procopius, it was a good choice, praising him as “both gentle and well-endowed with sagacity and thoroughly capable of valorous deeds.”

He was pretty decent, just not lucky. And unlike other usurpers – and like the other good usurper in my rankings – he didn’t kill the emperor he was usurping – who was in any event 5 years of age and in Constantinople at the time.

But of course the Theodosian dynasty wasn’t done screwing things up for the empire, no matter which half of the empire it did that from – instead of coming to an agreement with Joannes, Theodosius II proclaimed Valentinian III as caesar, “undoubtedly influenced by Valentinian’s mother Galla Placidia”.

And of course you know that meant war – civil war, between the eastern empire seeking to enthrone Valentinian as western emperor and the western empire under Joannes seeking to retain his throne – at the worst possible time when both empires needed everything they had against the barbarians at or inside their gates.

Theodosius II was not the only one screwing over the western empire to dethrone Joannes. The weaselly Bonifacius had previously screwed over the western empire’s campaigns against German barbarians in Spain because of his bitter rivalry with Castinus who led those campaigns, so no prizes for guessing what his attitude was towards Joannes, the emperor that Castinus had elevated to the throne.

Unfortunately, after screwing over the western empire in Spain, Bonifacius had somehow managed to fail upwards and acquire command of north Africa “in dubious circumstances” to screw the empire over from there, cutting off the grain shipments to Rome upon which the western empire depended.

Don’t worry – Bonifacius would continue screwing over the western empire after this as well, effectively with his renegade private empire in Africa, in the three man contest with Aetius and Felix that essentially characterized the western empire under Valentinian III. He ultimately lost north Africa to the Vandals (with some sources reporting that he had invited them there) and died from a wound in battle against Aetius in Italy. Good riddance too late.

And Joannes just seemed to have a string of bad luck – with an uprising or uprisings in Gaul, as well as an expedition to Africa, no doubt prompted by and to retaliate against Bonifacius, the outcome of which is not recorded but was presumably unsuccessful.

Joannes had been proclaimed emperor in Rome but moved his base of operations to Ravenna in a ballsy move, “knowing full well that the Eastern Empire would strike from that direction”. However, he did have an ace in the hole which he now played – sending Aetius on a mission to seek military help from the Huns, with whom Aetius had lived as a hostage earlier and had good relations. Ironically, Aetius mostly relied on the Huns as allies, before having to save the western empire from them.

In the meantime, the eastern empire sent its forces westwards, by land and sea, ultimately capturing Ravenna – the sources vary whether they did so outright or whether one of their captured leaders managed to convince the garrison of Ravenna to betray the city. Joannes was captured and killed.

Frankly, Theodosius II and the empire would have been better served by coming to an agreement with Joannes rather than enthroning Valentinian III. I mean, it’s like the meme – Theodosius II was mostly useless and basically slept through everything else falling apart in the western empire – but this is when he wakes up and does something?

“Three days after Joannes’ death, Aetius returned at the head of a substantial Hunnic army”. Three days! Still, Aetius was able to put the Hunnic army to good use spooking Galla Placidia, now in Italy with her useless son in train and as his regent, to make Aetius magister militum or military commander of the western empire.

As it was, even with all the odds stacked against him – the forces of the eastern empire and Bonifacius’ rogue state of north Africa cutting off Rome’s grain – Joannes did remarkably well. As historian Adrian Goldsworthy stated, “it took a hard-fought campaign by strong elements of the East Roman army and navy, in addition to a fair dose of betrayal,” to defeat Joannes.

RATING: 3 STARS***
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XVII: Imperial Wrath

(2) VETRANIO –
THE GOOD USURPER (CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY – WESTERN EMPIRE)
(350: 9 MONTHS 24 DAYS)

Almost all usurpers in the Roman empire were by definition ‘bad’. Well, the unsuccessful usurpers that is, not the ones who successfully upheld their claim and became or were regarded as legitimate emperors throughout the empire accordingly. To adapt Clint Eastwood’s line in Hang ‘Em High, when you usurp an emperor, you better look at usurping him right.

Or at least learn to read the room – which is what got Vetranio his ranking as ‘good’, a ranking I award to only two usurpers. It also got him a happy ending – rare among usurpers or indeed in the later empire in general.

It helps that, like my other good usurper, he did not kill the emperor he was usurping – or indeed did not usurp an emperor but rather another usurper.

In part I attribute that to his origin in the province of Moesia and position as governor of Illyria at the time he was an usurper – both part of that bedrock of the so-called Illyrian emperors who saved the empire and mostly ruled it for a few centuries.

That might be a romantic notion on my part based on my fondness for those emperors – but what isn’t a romantic notion is that he didn’t really push his imperial claim to any great extent. Rather, the sources present him as a counter-usurper against another usurper, Magnentius, who had killed and usurped Constans as western emperor, and was facing off against Constans’ brother Constantius in the eastern empire.

Or in modern parlance, usurping to troll Magnentius – and more importantly, an imperial c*ck-blocker if you will, stopping Magnentius from sticking it any further eastwards into Illyria.

He was asked to do so by Constantina, the sister of Constans – usually inferred to be on the basis of protecting herself and her family from her brother’s fate, but also speculated to involve political ambitions of her own.

Mind you, Vetranio fluctuated as usurper, at one point genuinely seeming to ally with Magnentius against Constantius, presumably for them to be co-emperors of the western empire.

However, when Vetranio met with Constantius and Constantius successfully appealed to have the Illyrian troops acclaim him as sole emperor by way of a stirring speech, “Vetranio threw himself on the ground and begged Constantius’ clemency”.

And in that rare happy ending, “the emperor gently raised the aged general by the hand, honoring him with the name of father, and gave him instant pardon” – with Vetranio then living peacefully in happy retirement.

I agree with the assessment of Spectrum – “You know, this guy knew his place. The only reason he made himself emperor was to stop another usurper at the request of the imperial family, and then, when time came for him to relinquish his power, he did. He didn’t give in to powerlust. I can respect that.”

RATING: 3 STARS***
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome: Diocletian’s Tetrarchy

(1) ULPIA SEVERINA –
FIRST AND LAST EMPRESS OF THE CLASSICAL ROMAN EMPIRE
(275 AD: 5-11 WEEKS – 6 MONTHS?)

Ulpia Severina – Lady Restorer of the World, first and last empress of the classical Roman Empire.

Or probably not according to the consensus of historiography, since her ‘reign’ as widow of Aurelian really boils down to a few coins minted in her name.

As such, she is my one honorable mention that does not appear in the Wikipedia list of Roman emperors at all, so obviously she’s not an usurper either. Well, at least not in the literal sense, but perhaps in the historiographical sense that some historians have metaphorically usurped her claim to the throne for her.

However, I prefer the romantic speculation of her as first and last empress of the Roman Empire – similar to my romantic fondness for the legend of Pope Joan, or for Joshua Norton as self-proclaimed First and Last Emperor of the United States (and Protector of Mexico).

After all, the eastern Roman empire has its reigning empresses, even if only a few of them. Of course, the eastern Roman empire also had a number of powerful women running things behind the throne, or beside it as imperial consorts, as did the classical Roman empire, although for some reason they seem to loom larger in the history of the eastern Roman empire – looking at you, Theodora. So why not one reigning empress in the classical empire?

Also, if anyone deserves that title, it’s Ulpia Severina as the wife of Aurelian – and widow after his assassination. Little is known about her – including when she was born, when she married Aurelian or when she was proclaimed as augusta (although the last may well have coincided with his triumphs celebrating his defeat and reclamation of the Palmyrene and Gallic Empires). The surviving literary sources do not discuss her at all, except for allusions to Aurelian’s wife in the Historia Augusta.

The only reliable evidence to her at all is a “scant number of inscriptions and coins”, confirming that she was indeed Aurelian’s wife and held the title of Augusta – and it’s from some unusual examples of those coins, minted in her name in 275 AD, that gives rise to speculation that she reigned in her own name as widow of Aurelian in the brief interregnum period between his assassination and the proclamation of Tacitus as his successor (originally thought to have been anywhere up to six months but now thought to be somewhere between five to eleven weeks).

If indeed she did, then in the eloquent words of Dovahhatty, she did “absolutely f*ck all, refusing to take advantage of her husband’s death and just printing coins for fun while waiting for a successor to be chosen” – coin mints go “brrr!” as Dovahhatty captioned her in the style of the meme.

And she did it awesomely – don’t you diss my empress, Dovahhatty! She also had a daughter with Aurelian, whose name is not known to recorded history – and both of them disappear from the historical record after the accession of Tacitus.

RATING: 3 STARS***
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

As I said, I’m ranking all the Roman emperors (until 476 AD) – and between my Top 10 Best Roman Emperors and twenty special mentions, I’ve ranked the thirty emperors I consider as ‘good’ emperors, right up to the dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors or what I’ve dubbed my Pertinax-Thrax line.

However, the good emperors don’t quite end there – it’s time to take pause and squeeze out a few honorable mentions for imperial claimants that don’t quite have the same authenticity or legitimacy as the emperors in my top ten or special mentions, but which I would still rank as ‘good’ (albeit in my x-tier or ‘wild’ tier).

Yes – we’re talking usurpers or at least those imperial claimants generally labelled as usurpers (with the notable exception of my first honorable mention). Not surprisingly, I have generally ranked usurpers dishonorable mention as ‘bad’ emperors – usurpers by definition tend to be ‘bad’ – but there were literally a couple of ‘good’ usurpers I have ranked as honorable mention. Yes – that’s a spoiler that I was only able to squeeze out three honorable mentions (my first honorable mention and two usurpers).

The term usurper itself is to some extent a question of degree in the Roman Empire, with the primary distinction being between successful usurpers and unsuccessful usurpers – the former upholding their claim as emperor, and the latter, well, not doing so, usually also ending with their defeat and death.

“A large number of emperors commonly considered as legitimate began their rule as usurpers, revolting against the previous legitimate emperor”.

Indeed, usurpation and civil war tended to be the order of the day for the Roman empire. While the imperial government itself was rarely called into question, “individual emperors often faced unending challenges in the form of usurpation and perpetual civil wars”.

“From the rise of Augustus, the first Roman emperor, in 27 BC to the sack of Rome in AD 455, there were over a hundred usurpations or attempted usurpations (an average of one usurpation or attempt about every four years). From the murder of Commodus in 192 until the fifth century, there was scarcely a single decade without succession conflicts and civil war”.

It didn’t help that “true legitimizing structures and theories were weak, or wholly absent, in the Roman Empire, and there were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the Roman army” – or even just part of the Roman army, the usual mechanism for usurpers being the legions they led.

As I said at the outset of ranking all the emperors, there is the issue of whom I rank as emperors – even with my ground rule of only ranking the emperors of the ‘classical empire’ prior to 476 AD – given the list of claimants to that title. As historian Adrian Goldsworthy points out, that’s a list which is likely never to be complete or exhaustive, given the paucity of the contemporary historical record and that we are still finding ‘imperial’ coins minted in the name of new or unknown claimants.

So I’ve gone by Wikipedia’s list of Roman emperors, although I reserved the right to consider the entries noted to be of more dubious legitimacy in further honorable or dishonorable mentions, hence these honorable mentions.

As noted previously, “the main factor that distinguishes usurpers from legitimate Roman emperors is their degree of success”. The Wikipedia list reflects this, operating on a collection of inclusion criteria – such as imperial claimants “whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and who ruled undisputed are treated as legitimate emperors”, “imperial claimants who were proclaimed emperors by another, legitimate, senior emperor, or who were recognized by a legitimate senior emperor”, and “imperial claimants who achieved the recognition of the Roman Senate” or “the possession and control of Rome itself”.

With the exception of my first honorable mention, these honorable mentions are for those entries in the Wikipedia list which are noted as being of “ambiguous legitimacy” or “varying ascribed status”. As the notes to the list clarify, “unless otherwise noted to be some other ambiguity, the emperors marked to be of ambiguous legitimacy are those who fulfill one or more of the inclusion criteria above, but who are not universally regarded by scholars to count as legitimate. In most cases, such figures are those who held power only briefly, and/or who in times of more than one emperor held one of the capitals but never achieved the full recognition of the other emperor(s)”. As for “the junior co-emperors marked as being of varying ascribed status, they are “figures, mostly children, who are usually not counted as ‘true’ emperors given their submissive status to the senior emperor but are still present in some lists of rulers”.