Worst Roman Emperor of all???

[Celtic505]

Who does everybody think is the worst Roman emperor to reign over the Roman Empire through all of its history? Who do you consider to be the worst? The most insane ones? The ones who led Rome to economic decline? The Romans emperors who were indifferent to their duties? The Roman emperors who led Rome to its downfall? (if you think there are any single persons to be blamed). What do you feel constitutes as being "the worst" emperor of all? Post your answers and your reasons why you think they are the worst, I'm very interested in hearing what everybody has to say and the historical facts I may not know about certain emperors. So than, who is the WORST?

[Jona Lendering]

Often, the emperors who are considered to be bad in our sources, turn out to be pretty capable rulers, who only happened to be more perceptive than the Senate, which still wrote most books of history. Few modern historians will accept Tacitus' portrayal of Tiberius without making at least some adjustments. My favorite bête noire is Otho, who is often praised for commiting suicide to put an end to a civil war. Unfortunately, being dead he could no longer explain why he had reached for the purple in the first place.

There is little good to say about Heliogabalus, but on the other hand: he did not create a major catastrophe either.

In the Gallic Empire: Laelianus, whose revolt against the capable Postumus ruined everything.

Perhaps Arcadius and Anthemius, who both created problems for the western part of the Empire.

Phocas, for obvious reasons.

Michael VII, who refused to pay Alp Aslan after Manzikert, and released the Turk's justified wrath. Not Manzikert was decisive, but Constantinople's answer to the crisis.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

In addition to being a nut, Commodus was a derelict administrator who left most of his day-to-day work to his subordinates and allowed corruption to run rampant.

But this is a difficult question to answer because there are so many bad emperors, and comparing two from different eras can be like comparing apples to oranges. A mediocre emperor during the 4th century could fare a lot worse than an outright awful emperor would during the Pax Romana, simply because of external pressures.

[Jona Lendering]

In addition to being a nut, Commodus was a derelict administrator who left most of his day-to-day work to his subordinates and allowed corruption to run rampant.

Was he? His reputation is bad because our sources hate him, but this partly because he waged war on the Senate, which wrote history. Outsiders liked his bravoura and appreciated his martial prowess. There are inscriptions that prove that the armies appreciated his bizarre PR, and perhaps the best evidence that he was not regarded as raving mad is that Septimius Severus presented himself as Commodus' brother by adoption, and copied the Emperor=Hercules part of Commodus' image. I'm not saying he was a kind man, but he was not Rome's worst ruler.

[Robert Vermaat]

In the Gallic Empire: Laelianus, whose revolt against the capable Postumus ruined everything.

On that analogy: Allectus, whose killing of the capable Carausius may have hastened the reoccupation of Britain by Constantius Chlorus, but may very well have hastened the end of Roman Britain.

Honorius and Valentinian III, not really emperors (but puppets to the real rulers behind the throne), yet who managed to kill off very capale men (Stilicho and Aetius resepectively) who might have slowed the fall of the West a little.

Michael VII, who refused to pay Alp Aslan after Manzikert, and released the Turk's justified wrath. Not Manzikert was decisive, but Constantinople's answer to the crisis.

Oh absolutely!!!

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Was he? His reputation is bad because our sources hate him, but this partly because he waged war on the Senate, which wrote history. Outsiders liked his bravoura and appreciated his martial prowess. There are inscriptions that prove that the armies appreciated his bizarre PR, and perhaps the best evidence that he was not regarded as raving mad is that Septimius Severus presented himself as Commodus' brother by adoption, and copied the Emperor=Hercules part of Commodus' image. I'm not saying he was a kind man, but he was not Rome's worst ruler.

But he never really accomplished anything with the military; as soon as his father died, he ended his campaigns against the Germans and gave them lenient terms. He was trained in the martial arts and might have looked the part, but as far as I know he never demonstrated bravery or tactical prowess on the battlefield.
And as an administrator, he relied on "yes men" like Saoterus and Cleander, the latter of whom was scapegoated and killed once things started going badly. I suppose it's fair to question whether his advisors were really as corrupt as our sources make them seem.

You're right, he probably wasn't the worst ruler Rome ever had, but I see no reason to believe he was a good ruler. Maybe he wasn't so much a "nut," just a bit of a fool who was out of touch with the realities and responsibilities of his position.
And, "Colonia Commodiana"?? Seriously? I hope that's just a tall tale.

[Jona Lendering]

as soon as his father died, he ended his campaigns against the Germans and gave them lenient terms.

There's nothing with being lenient. The war was won, it was time to offer the enemy a peace treaty. It was one of the best ones Rome ever gave to an enemy: during the next century or so, Caracalla, Severus Alexander, and Maximinus Thrax had to fight against the Alamans in the west, but the Marcomanni and Sarmatians, who might have joined, remained allies of Rome. A quick scan teaches me that the first outbreak of war on Rome's northern frontier was the Marcoman invasion of Pannonia in 254.

I'd say that any treaty that creates the conditions for three quarters of a century of peace, is a good one. It is only by the standard of senatorial historiography, in which only full conquest is acceptable, that Commodus failed. But that was no longer Rome's grand strategy.

[Epictetus]

Supposed-monsters like Caligula and Domitian are often ranked as among the worst emperors, but a lot of their bad reputation may be from how they acted towards the Senate and writers of history.

Personally, I'm dismissive of some who put personal safety over the res publica. Aemilian is one of these, who abandoned his up-to-then successful war against the Goths in Thrace to invade Italy after he was declared emperor. This contrasts sharply with emperors like Philip the Arab and Marcus Aurelius whom (supposedly) offered their own suicide to the Senate if that would be better for the res publica.

Elagalabus is similar. He seems to have completely disregarded the needs of his subjects and abandoned himself to his own desires. I think a devotion to the public zeal is a good measure of their intentions.

[Jona Lendering]

Elagalabus is similar. He seems to have completely disregarded the needs of his subjects and abandoned himself to his own desires.

He was a child. The real villains are the people behind his throne, and I think even his mother, aunt, and grandmother did their best. Nevertheless, Rome was one big theater show. But the provinces flourished and the borders were safe.

[Epictetus]

If we compare Elagabalus with his sucessor Severus Alexander the contrast cannot be more striking. Both were about the same age when they came (or were shoved) into power, and both were from the same family. Historians tells us Elagabalus was an abject failure while Severus Alexander was modestly successful, to a point. (Surely Dio had nothing to do with this, nor the at-times News of the World-ish Historia Augusta. :wink: )

How much influence did Julia Maesa wield over these two? Why is one looked upon as a monster while the other as mildly positive?

[john m roberts]

For Romans, Elagabalus had the very worst quality a man could posess: effeminacy. Plus, he was a passive homosexual (according to the sources.) To traditional Romans that made him utterly un-Roman and to Christians it made him an abomination.

[Jona Lendering]

If we compare Elagabalus with his sucessor Severus Alexander the contrast cannot be more striking. ... Why is one looked upon as a monster while the other as mildly positive?

That's the image the sources intend to convey, especially the Historia Augusta. The facts must have been different. Cassius Dio, who was twice consul (the second time with the emperor!) writes that he does not know enough about the reign of the "good" Severus Alexander (80.1), implausibly arguing that he was away from Rome. He rapidly concludes his Roman History when he reaches the reign he knows best and about which he could obtain most information. I think there is no better evidence that the goodness of Alexander is exaggerated.

Cf. the "good" Drusus versus the "bad" Tiberius; or Suetonius hagiography of Titus compared to his black-as-ink portrait of Domitian.

[Robert Vermaat]

He was a child. The real villains are the people behind his throne

That's why I nominated two 5th-c. child emperors, who grew into (more or lesss) powerful despots themselves. :twisted:

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Was he? His reputation is bad because our sources hate him, but this partly because he waged war on the Senate, which wrote history.

So would you say that Commodus is actually a better emperor than he is given credit for?

I'd say that any treaty that creates the conditions for three quarters of a century of peace, is a good one. It is only by the standard of senatorial historiography, in which only full conquest is acceptable, that Commodus failed. But that was no longer Rome's grand strategy.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but you have a point. Turning the land of the Marcomanni into a Roman province probably would have been more trouble than it was worth. It was already hard enough to defend that part of the frontier without expanding the borders.

[Jona Lendering]

So would you say that Commodus is actually a better emperor than he is given credit for?

Not a good one; you may like O. Hekster, Commodus: An Emperor at the Crossroads (2002; review). It contains a chapter in which he proves that the imperial propaganda (Commodus=Hercules) was accepted by a/o the army.