Late Roman Emperors

[Epictetus]

Personally, I have a mixed view of Theodosius.

Yes, Theodosius accepted whole groups of barbarians into the Empire. But he wasn’t the first. According to the creation myths Romulus literally opened an asylum and accepted anyone. Caesar put Gauls in the Senate. Claudius did likewise. Marcus Aurelius accepted barbarian groups.

These are just a few examples. And yes, there were problems. Social War, anyone? Marcus had a rebellion to deal with as well. Yet, Rome could not and would not have grown and thrived if it was a closed society like some of the Greek city-states. So I don’t damn Theodosius in bringing in barbarians. Perhaps things could have been done differently. History showed that it took time – generations, even – to turn new, sometimes forced, converts into good Romans. Maybe by this era time was a premium that simply wasn’t available.

(As a side note: Roman openness has always intrigued me. I wish I had time to do a real, proper study of it. I think it is a fascinating, and often overlooked, aspect of the Roman civilisation. But I digress.)

Yes, Theodosius also submitted to a loss of authority. But the res publica always had different spheres of power. Sometimes they competed. Early Emperors had to deal with the Senate, which still occasionally had some teeth. Others had a potential rival power source in generals. One could argue that Emperors giving gifts to the soldiers upon their accent to the purple as a nod to the power of the army. Was this a degradation of the imperial auctoritas or honestas? The Church was just one more independent sphere of power during the late Empire which emperors had to deal with.

He also did some nasty things, with the Massacre at Thessalonica given as an example. Yet Augustus’ proscriptions are rarely cited as a reason why he was not a “good emperor.” I guess what I am saying is that in many ways Roman society was a strange, alien beast to our modern eyes. Violence was distressingly common, and it was commonly used as a tool of policy.

I always liked this passage from Christian Meier’s biography of Julius Caesar. I think when I originally read this it helped me gain a bit of perspective.

We must therefore consider not just the personalities, their general and particular interests and opinions, but the positions they occupy within the configuration, which is of course determined by their action and interaction, but also determines them. The overall situation dictates not only the areas of activity, but perspective and distance. In any situation men are bound to certain positions, and these are defined within the surrounding framework. One must therefore consider not just the participants, but the total situation, which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Meier, Caesar, page 6 in English translation

I guess like Robert said, it was a sign of the times. Theodosius was a creature of his age.
Edit: and I see Duncan also said something similar while I was writing this. :wink: I was a bit slow with my response.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Duncan,

My tongue was slightly in my cheek when I quoted Gibbon's fulsome praise. But only slightly. Theodosius was a victim of his times. The empire had just suffered its greatest calamity at Adrianople. His predecessor Valens had mismanaged the Goths. Finances were stretched. And yet the empire survived. (I know little about his devout Catholicism, so I cannot comment on that aspect.)

True, true, but then again, other emperors of his age made different choices, didn't they?
I surely don't deny the times, but Theodosius was the first to succumb, and as the dominate was also a theocracy, he gave supreme power away, which cost the empire a lot of prestige.

Hi David,

Yes, Theodosius accepted whole groups of barbarians into the Empire. But he wasn’t the first.

No, he sure wasn't. But let me repeat myself: Theodosius was the first to accept groups of barbarians into the empire under their own leadership. These groups remained much more independent than all the groups that had been accepted into the empire before. This was indeed a breach with tradition. Maybe it was necessary - Theodosius is often seen as a restorer after a big disaster (we forget Gratian's work in the years after Adrianople), but a lot of this restoration was based on sheer compromise with the barbarians. He never won large campaigns. One of his creatures was Alaric - we all know what he did later.
In due course, these groups developed into kingdoms.

Yes, Theodosius also submitted to a loss of authority. But the res publica always had different spheres of power. Sometimes they competed. Early Emperors had to deal with the Senate, which still occasionally had some teeth. Others had a potential rival power source in generals. One could argue that Emperors giving gifts to the soldiers upon their accent to the purple as a nod to the power of the army. Was this a degradation of the imperial auctoritas or honestas? The Church was just one more independent sphere of power during the late Empire which emperors had to deal with.

All too true. But under the Dominate and later, emperors had become quite autocratic. No senate to worry over, the power of generals curbed.. now it was the turn of the barbarians and the church, but they were new problems.

Personally I find hat both Julian and Theodosius are the two most overrated emperors of the 4th century.

[MarcellusCCLXXV]

First, thanks everyone for all the thought provoking responses.

Based on the postings thus far, it seems as though the candidates for good Late Roman emperors (West, circa 300-476 A.D.) include Diocletian, Constantine I, Constantine II, Julian the Apostate, Valentinian I, Theodosius I, Majorian, and Anthemius. I do not think I missed anyone. Of course, there are differences of opinion on those eight emperors.

Arguably, a problem we face centers on what constitutes a good emperor? I guess the trappings of historiography can pose a dilemma, if not a problem, as well. What we in the 21st century see as the attributes of good leadership may have been quite different to past historians such as Ammianus Marcellinus or even Edward Gibbon.

For example, Marcellinus apparently was a pagan. He saw Julian as the “new” Marcus Aurelius, an emperor who was ushering in an enlightened era of past pagan Roman virtues. His evaluation of Julian was quite favorable. Gibbon, a product of the 18th Century Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment, tended to view Christianity skeptically as well. He even saw Christianity as a major cause (if not the major cause) of Rome’s fall. He also favored the “enlightened philosopher king.” So Gibbon would have liked a Marcus Aurelius but not necessarily someone like Theodosius, someone I suspect he would have viewed as being too influenced by St. Ambrose.

Correct me if I am wrong please.

So, let me back up a bit and posit a somewhat different topic: what constituted a good Roman emperor as opposed to a bad one, in late antiquity?

[markusaurelius]

I guess for me personally a good emperor would have shown some of the following traits:

- A vision for the Empire as Roman, beyond his palace gates.
- Political skill that did not include killing everyone (compromise anyone?).
- Good military general, or the ability to recognize and appoint someone who was.
- Someone who actually did something (that benefitied the empire), or at least tried to do so. The opposite of Arcadius, Valentinian III etc.

I guess I like giving points for effort, as I think that was half the problem with some of the late emperors. They were more inclined to sit back and enjoy the fruits of their fading empire, than to actually go out and change things, or "do something" besides assasinating rivals, leaving only useless people behind.

I actually think that Gibbon's praise of Aetius is a little miss guided. Although perhaps the last remaining general with some skill, in both politics and military, he was also busy being jealous over Bonifacius in Africa, ultimately leading to the Vandals arriving and winning there. Bonifacius, an able and tested general was then killed off by Aetius. Once Africa was lost, the light of the empire began fading at a much higher pace IMO.

my 2 cents for now.

[D B Campbell]

I guess for me personally a good emperor would have shown some of the following traits:
- A vision for the Empire as Roman, beyond his palace gates.
- Political skill that did not include killing everyone (compromise anyone?).
- Good military general, or the ability to recognize and appoint someone who was.
- Someone who actually did something (that benefitied the empire), or at least tried to do so. The opposite of Arcadius, Valentinian III etc.

For what it's worth, the Romans seem to have had other ideas. According to Eutropius (Breviarium 8.5), the Senate greeted new emperors with the wish that they'd be "more fortunate than Augustus, more noble than Trajan".

[Virilis]

I think the epitome of a "late" roman emperor is Gratian (at least if you ask Valens) :wink: ...

HAPPY NEW YEAR, more bad jokes will follow in 2010 !

[markusaurelius]

hehe. Only a Roman enthusiast would get that. But it made me laugh

[MarcellusCCLXXV]

I found DB Campbell’s suggested attributes of a good Late Roman emperor a very good list. Here is my list, very similar to DB Campbell’s:

1. Attempted to provide for smooth succession
2. Tried to extend commerce
3. Tried to maintain stability
4. Morally upright (relative to the times)
5. Did not use the office for personal aggrandizement or gain
6. Maintained peace if possible
7. Did not bankrupt the empire
8. Kept the army strong
9. Increased the wealth of the empire when possible
10. Was effective in dealing with crises
11. Left the empire in better shape then what it was like before e came to power, or what it could have been like (in worse shape) had he not ruled

Of course, as pointed out, these are attributes suggested by individuals living in the early 21st Century, not the late 4th-early 5th Centuries. What the Romans of Late Antiquity saw as attributes of a good emperor are discussed somewhat by Thomas S. Burns in his book, Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C.-A.D. 400. A good emperor, for example, would have maintained healthy client-patron equilibrium between Rome and the Barbarians. If that meant conquest, then so be it. Also, an emperor would have been scrutinized for his personal valor. With these attributes in mind, we can see why a Roman historian such as Marcellinus would have looked upon Julian favorably.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Julianus......

Because he wanted the pagan religion back.

M.VIB.M.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

I think that, if you view it as a good thing, attempting to make paganism dominant again in the empire would be the only reason you could ever come up with for Julian being a good emperor - otherwise he was a disaster.

[taira1180]

So to continue the thread, what would be the worst emperors?
For my list:
Valentinian II
Honorius
By letting others to rule, they let the title of emperor to be a mere façade. And of course, they killed Stilichon and Aecio.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

So to continue the thread, what would be the worst emperors?
For my list:
Valentinian II
Honorius
By letting others to rule, they let the title of emperor to be a mere façade. And of course, they killed Stilichon and Aecio.

"Letting" implies they had some sort of choice, and I'm not sure that was the case. Also if you include Honorius why not his brother?

Anyway I'd be very tempted to put Julian in this category.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

The worst?

Theodosius the traitor, because he made Christianity the state religion and thereby destroyed all which made Rome great.

:twisted:

M.VIB.M.

[taira1180]

So to continue the thread, what would be the worst emperors?
For my list:
Valentinian II
Honorius
By letting others to rule, they let the title of emperor to be a mere façade. And of course, they killed Stilichon and Aecio.

"Letting" implies they had some sort of choice, and I'm not sure that was the case. Also if you include Honorius why not his brother?

Anyway I'd be very tempted to put Julian in this category.

Well, until then, no puppet emperors had existed in such a way. Honorius after having Stilicho killed, could have rulle by himself for some years, since there wasn't any strong man in the army, but he let otehrs do the job (even if with less power than Stilicho). Not a proof that he was particulary competent.
About Arcadius: well, the east empire survived! But your right, Arcadius was so gifted to rulling as his brother. And Julian reign left a disastrous legacy to his sucessors indeed (even if he was more competent than Honorius and his brother).

[Zenobia of Palmyra]

I think Majorian had a lot of squandered potential, from what I know about him.