Worst Roman Emperor of all???

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

I think Julian ... is one of the most interesting of the roman emperors

He's indeed not the worst emperor; but he certainly is Rome's worst poet. :wink:

I didn't write that, but I concur. On the interesting part. I haven't read his poetry.

[Nathan Ross]

I think Julian ... is one of the most interesting of the roman emperors

He's indeed not the worst emperor; but he certainly is Rome's worst poet. :wink:

Surely that would be Cicero?

O fortunatam natam me consule Romam

("Rome was born a lucky city, when I as Consul wrote this ditty...")

- Nathan

[Nathan Ross]

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.

Good point - possibly we could open a sub-thread on "Most Unfairly Maligned Roman Emperor of All?" Caligula I'm not so sure about, but Domitian almost certainly had his saving graces - I'm rather fond of him, but mainly, I confess, for his badness...

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Nero. Again, he got a lot of bad press from the senate, but in his case he does seem to have pushed the boat out rather - forcing Corbulo's suicide could have been catastrophic for the situation in the east, and for someone with everything going for him (senatorial opposition notwithstanding), he does seem to have squandered his talents somewhat. It's telling that even attempts to make Nero look good (populist! liberal! artistic!), like the recent British TV history (the name of which escapes me), actually make him appear even more demented than he did previously... hock:

Elagabalus, meanwhile, was (almost) certainly the weirdest emperor, and possibly the worst, although I think Jona's right that he was not entirely culpable - he was a crazy kid raised by a cult, after all. He never pretended that he was going to be anything other than he was - it was Rome's shame, not his, that the empire had reached such a low as to allow the freakshow, or tolerate it for so long.

In terms of culpability, one of the most heinous was surely Didius Julianus - the only man to effectively buy the empire off the Praetorian Guard! That he managed so little with his ill-gotten gains suggests he had little going for him other than wealth - his action may have been more a symptom of the rot rather than a contributing cause, but it certainly set a bad precedent.

- Nathan

[Theodosius the Great]

I'm surprised nobody's nominated Caracalla. He massacred the Alexandrians, killed his brother and college emperor, outfitted a legion in Macedonian style, debased the currency yet further, and started an unneccesary war against the dying Parthian empire. To top it off he was assassinated by his own Prefect of the Guard. His outlandish tastes for Celtic / Germanic clothing are well known. Certainly he was the most boorish man to become emperor up to that time. The most lasting damage of his reign was the debasement of the currency (which would continue still well beyond his reign) to finance his wild spending.

But even if he isn't the worst emperor his dynastly, I think, was the worst. No one after Septimius died a natural death and none equaled or surpassed his abilities.

About Tiberius, he was one of Rome's most capable emperors. No one else was more prepared for the office than he. In some ways he made a better emperor than Augustus who lacked military leadership skills. But I agree with Dennis about his faults (eg. ruling from Capua, enabling Sejanus to become so influential, etc..)

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

I'm surprised nobody's nominated Caracalla. ... The most lasting damage of his reign was the debasement of the currency

The story about the debasement is not completely correct. Marcus Aurelius appears to have been the first emperor who used debasement to pay for an expanded army (debasements in 161 and 179). After this, Commodus and Didius Julianus debased the denarius again - the last one being serious. Severus refrained from this policy, and Caracalla's debasement was, compared to what had happend by Marcus, Commodus, and Julianus, not so big. Here is an overview; Caracalla's coins converted to classical denarii.

[Theodosius the Great]

Thanks, Jona !

My real gripe isn't so much with Caracalla's debasement of the coinage but that he had the least justification for doing so, IMO. His grandiose building projects combined with his constant war-making put an unnecessary strain on the empire's inhabitants.

Your chart really helps put things in perspective.

BTW, it's a good reminder of how fiscally responsible Domitian really was with the currency. His coins were superior to those of his father who debased it somewhat. This one area is where Domitian clearly shines as an emperor. He's one of my favorites as well.

~Theo