Print Page | Close Window

Worst Roman Emperors

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Discription: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6901
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 07:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Worst Roman Emperors
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Subject: Worst Roman Emperors
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 15:53
Who is the worst Roman emperor?

-------------
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)



Replies:
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 16:50
Elagabalus and Valentinian III come to mind.


-------------


Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 17:32

There are several candidates and everytime this question is being raised,  the names of Calligula, Nero and Commodus mostly will pop up. I will pick Honorius from the point that his reign was one of the worst, Roman empire ever seen and himself was an incapable emperor. His desicions were disastrous and definitely he is in the list of the most unworthy emperors.



-------------
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 18:01

 I think Valentinian III is a definate candidate, I think he is the only Emperor to have ruled as long as he did (31 years) and do absolutely nothing of value whatsoever.

 Honorius was appalling to, 28 years of absolutely nothing so add that together since Honorius was the Emperor immediately prior to Valentinian III and you have 59 years where the western Roman empire effectively had no Emperor.

 You expect the odd lunatic to occupy the throne as some point, but the worst Emperors IMO were the ones who wernt necessarily brutal but just not interested in running the empire or to weak to assert their authority. Honorius and Valentinian III fit that. Throw in the eastern Emperor Arcadius aswell.

 I to (like contempories of Honorius/Arcadius) find it amazing that either were sons of Theodosius the great, Theodosius being a very capable Emperor and general his sons having absolutely no virtues whatsoever and totally unworthy of either throne.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 23:08
Caligula, Nero, and Commodus are probably the famous "bad emperors." But while Caligula and Nero were bad emperors, their reign was in no way detrimental to the Roman Empire in a significant way (which had been going with a pretty steady momentum after Augustus' reign). Commodus can make a case as having been a "bad influence" on Rome, as it marked the end of the Imperium's golden age, but the empire was still strong and was far from collapse. On the other hand, during the times of Honorius and Valentinian, the Empire was on the way of collapsing. Thus, Honorius and Valentinian were bad emperors when times were bad. Caligula and Nero were bad emperors when times were good.

Personality-wise, Elagabalus was pretty much a wacko. Unfortunately he isn't well-known enough.



-------------


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 23:22

I voted for other, more specifically Elagabalus.  Commodus comes close to him in the magnitude of his vices and his total disregard for the well-being of the Empire and the Roman people.  However, I believe the Emperors on the poll, Commodus included, made some attempt to protect the Empire or to extend its influence through conquest.  The success of these attempts is questionable though.  However, Elagabalus was pretty much devoid of care for the Empire or its people.  As a person he was everything that was against traditional Roman values; his purpose as Emperor was to convert the Empire into an Eastern-styled despotate and to use the treasury for his own habits.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2005 at 04:42

 Ive only recently came across Elagabalus, he does seem to of been quite mad perhaps just another example of what can happen when somebody so young gains so much power so early. I dont know maybe he was already crazy.

http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/elagabalus-index.html - http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/elagabalus-index.html

 I agree that although the likes of Caligula and Nero were bad/cruel Emperors, this didnt necessarily mean they caused major damage to the empire (except probably on the moral level), I suppose the year of 4 Emperors after Neros death didnt help the empire much.

 However any damage done by these two Emperors and other poor ones like Domitian was more than made up for by the 5 good Emperors that would see the empire reach its peak. Caligula and Nero seem to have come along at a good time to be useless, the empire was wealthy and its army was pretty much all powerful. It could therefore better afford an Emperor who wasnt really an Emperor at all.

http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/elagabalus-index.html -  



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Degredado
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 09:15

Heliogabulus.

Does Domitian deserve to be on that list? He was competent. His fault was just being dictatorial and life-threatening.



-------------
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2005 at 10:12

 Domitian seems to have been a pretty sound administrator and a decent commander, under him the empire did conquer more territory and defeat more enemies on the frontiers.

 However he was cruel and tyrannical, he was popular with the army for raising their pay and would of kept the support back home had he just restrained himself. His cruelty and paranoia (the treason trials etc) was wholly unnecessary, in the end his increasingly tyrannical rule could no longer be tolerated and he was rightfully removed.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2005 at 09:23
I think Domitian was not too bad, the Romans may not have liked that fact he was cruel to pro-consuls (provincial governors) who were corrupt and dishonest, but his hideous cruelty kept them running a tight and honest ship.

When you actually think about it, at least 80% of the time Rome had pretty capable leaders and managers running her much of the time. Quite often when the leader themself was not capable, responsibility for policy making and managing devolved to more capable subordinates (Nero is a good example of this).

All in all I pick Honorius. He had a safe, well governed Empire that he inherited from his capable father. He had some very capable military subordinates (Stilicho) and was in a good position to actually reconstruct the Empire. It was in his reign that the psychological supremacy of the Empire was dealt the blow that really destroyed it. The sack of Rome by Alaric might have confirmed the political and military realities of the day, but it also broke down that psychological invincibility of Rome in the eyes of her enemies. Only in Honorius's reign did the situation for the Western Empire turn from tenuous to terminal. Had he been half-capable, it need not have.


-------------


Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2005 at 16:52

I voted other, mainly Elagabalus and Honorius.

If only half of the things I have read about Elagabalus are true then he is the most sexually perverse of any emperor in history, even more so than the julio-claudians.  His lack of concern for the empire didn't help much either. 

Completely agree with Constantine XI in regards to Honorius.  Honorius was just a waste, he ruled for an incredibly long time for such an incompetent emperor (395-423).  He killed of his best general, Stilicho, and is pretty much solely responsible for Alaric invading Italy.  His reign drove the last nail into the coffin for the western roman empire.



-------------
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann



Posted By: Infidel
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2005 at 22:34

Nero and Caligula always appear as the bad guys. I think some unjustice is being made to them.



-------------
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 16:17
 ^^^I think the only injustice is how Nero and Caligula are more commonly famous than Trajan, Aurelian and even Constantine

-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Genghis Khan II
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 16:57

Nero. Even non christains admit he was bad (Plus he was the worst one I have heard of)



-------------
Evolution is dead they just forgot to bury the body.

Logic is the best kind of evedence, science is only second best.


Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2005 at 00:11
Caligula actually started his reign pretty well, he was near Augustus in popularity.  Then 6 months into his reign he contracted some illness and "recovered" to become the Caligula everyone is familiar with.  Some think it was epilepsy (from Caesar?) or just a genetic disorder from inbreeding.

-------------
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann



Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2005 at 00:14

Originally posted by Justinian

Caligula actually started his reign pretty well, he was near Augustus in popularity.  Then 6 months into his reign he contracted some illness and "recovered" to become the Caligula everyone is familiar with.  Some think it was epilepsy (from Caesar?) or just a genetic disorder from inbreeding.

I wouldn't be surprised with all that bloody inbreeding they did. In our lectures that was a constant source of jokes.



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 14:04
Time to revive an old topic. how about Caracalla? I mean, nero, Caligula, and even Commudus were embarrassments and Hornius was incapable, but the first 3 were simply embarrasements, while Hornius had a hopeless task. Caracalla's managed to mess it up, after his father had restored stability to the empire, that takes a lot of talent. Not to mention the sack of Alexandria.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 14:06
And while we are at it, the Severun dynsaty was a distaster. Granted Sepitimus himself was one of Rome's greatest, but the rest were/are beyond redemption.


-------------


Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 14:37
hands down caligula


Posted By: Hannibal the Great
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 18:07
Commodus, he was more intrested in bashing slaves heads in than running a country and for that his father is to blame.


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 20:02
Commodus. He even renamed rome at one time to Colonia Commodiana. Most of his victories were marginal on the fronts and yet he had himself praised even renaming the calenders, senate and armies after him. With his lifestyle he would bankrupt the empires treasury and then accuse senators of treason to confiscate their lands rebuilding the treasury. He was also quite loony as he would star himself in the arena fighting lame animals or hapless gladiators to build his ego. He also ruled, somehow, for a lengthy time.

Nero and Caligula seem more comical type worst emperors. The nero against his mother story still makes me shake my head how demented it was. The whole line Caligula,Claudius and Nero were all loons.

-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 13:51

Gundamor,

Don't forget that these "stories" that you speak of were written by those who were against or enemies of the particular Emperor involved. So don't be too Gullible. Especially in Nero's case. People often forget that the Emperor Marcus Aurelius killed and persecuted more Christians than Nero ever did, but Aurelius is considered as one of the Good Emperors and Nero Bad. Nero in fact was probably one of the most Popular Roman Emperors Ever, but not with the Patricians of course.




-------------


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 14:16
Actually I never put nero above alot of other bad emperors. So the problems with Agrippina never exsisted? He even reported to the senate he had to act against her so I dont see how thats a story. Burrus and Seneca had more of hand in his success and during his last few years I doubt he had this most popular roman emperor image you portrait. Like i said i thought his and caligula's reigns seemed to be more comical.

I could say same thing about your opinion of Napoleon. These stories you hear are written by those against him.

-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 19:23
Read about Nero in Suetonious or the section about the Madnes of Nero in the Annals of Imperial rome. Frankly, he seemed to be a foul man. Some of the stories are frankly disgusting. Caligula was plauged by a brain disease, so his behavior was not all his fault.

-------------


Posted By: Ildico
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 00:00
The funny thing about Commodus is that he didn't start out bad(probably like most emperors), he remained innocent until there was a plot to kill him, that's when he turned and got paranoid. Didn't he get killed by a wrestler? I'll have to reread that part of Gibbon.

Valentinian III would definately be a good canidate for worst emperor, especially because of the fact that he murdered Flavius Aetius after all of his years of service to the empire. I always thought of Val. III as a weak man in general, very sneaky like a vermin.

-------------
Beauty is in the eye of that guy behind the spontaneous diversions, set aside for a good explorer, telling a story about the world.


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 07:51

What are good books to read about (apart from Gibbon) for learning about these later Emperors? I have only really read about the 12 Caesars



-------------


Posted By: clement207
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 20:49
To me Nero = Loony

-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 07:45
The first Year of the Four Emperors was filled with stupid men until Vespasian came. Not THE worst but bad they were.

-------------


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 05:40

Elagabalus was definately one of the "weaker" emperors.



Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 03:57

Tiberius was a terrible emperor, but he seems to  me to have been sly and cunning. Like Stalin, he wanted dead anyone who got in his way and it is suspected that he organized (or at least played at part in) The death of Germanicus



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 05:48
I don't think so. The criteria for a bad emperor is fit mainly by most of the Severun dynasty. Except old Sepitimus of course.


-------------


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 10:35

I have not read much about the later dynasties of the Roman emperors. I have read Suetonius and Tacitus in relation to the emperors. What are some other good historians to read about the later dynasties?



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 11:19
For the Severun dynasty the best is a recent book called, African Emperor.
 
Otherwise old Gibbon is a great resource for catching up on the history. If not the best analysis.
 


-------------


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 13:02

Hello,

One happened to glance the Poll at the top of this thread and to my amazement discovered that 10 people have voted for Nero as the Worst Roman Emperor! This is particularly shocking to me because the Poll also includes the notorious Emperors Caligula and Commodus who have recieved considerably less votes! Now..... I fully respect the right of a person to vote for whoever they want to vote for..... but..... One is really very Curious to know how an intelligent person can come to the Conclusion that Nero was a Worse Emperor than both Caligula and Commodus!!!!!

Maybe I am just making the mistake of Assuming that the people who voted for Nero have some kind of Knowledge about or have done Research concerning this topic of the Roman Emperors! I am simply at a loss to understand it.

So..... if I may..... can I ask those who voted for Nero to explain to me the reasons, in their opinion, why Nero was a worse Emperor than both Caligula and Commodus????? Please... unburden my Curiosity.

   



Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 06:59
As for the year of the four emperors, I don't think they were all bad. Judging from Suetonius, Galba and Vitellius were both pretty poor. But he has alot of positive stuff to say about Otho, and certainly the man went out with a death that had an element of nobility to it.

-------------


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 10:58
The worst Roman? That is a pretty big title for one to have to wear. There were certainly many who were bad.  Caracalla, Commodus and Elagabalus number amongst the more popular choices. How influential either one of these or others were in actually leading to the fall of them Empire, well, I think it is too hard for me to say.
 
My candidate is Honorius 

Hiding in Ravenna, ready to escape at a moments notice without making any effort to save the Empire or at least alieviate the sufferings of the Italians. Even if he might have been a bad leader he could have at least tried. Apparently his greatest passion as Roman Emperor was tending to his beloved tomatoes on his small farm while the rest of Italy was getting raped by the barbarians.
He had sufficient troops at his disposal and he had lots of money as well as a companion in the East who he could have begged or paid for reinforcements from. There was a lot Honorius could have done but instead he didn't do a thing and to make things worse he had a very long reign and died of natural causes!
Anyone with a bit of determination could surely have turned the tide and Honorius' reign was at the decisive moment when the Western Roman Empire still had options available to recover. After his reign and the damage he caused, it was then too late to recover, the vital moment was lost.
Honorius was in my opinion like a 'dead' Emperor, under his reign Italy (essentialy the Western Empire at this point) virtually had no government and no protection, the government was weak and corrupt and still bleading the Italians with heavy taxes while offering them nothing in return.
 
sorry I'v been so harsh but I really dislike this man. 
 
 


-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 09:11
Nero by a long shot! I watched a program on him last week - a docu-drama and the man was head case. Although to be fair I think he did suffer from some Mental Illness , maybe dementia or schizophrenia , that caused him to act as he did. Still he was a pretty disasterous ruler.

-------------
Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile


Posted By: Philhellene
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 17:19

Valentinian III would definately be a good canidate for worst emperor, especially because of the fact that he murdered Flavius Aetius after all of his years of service to the empire. I always thought of Val. III as a weak man in general, very sneaky like a vermin.

 

Aetius was a real military dictator, it was him who actually ruled the Western Roman empire under Valentinian. His tension with Roman general Bonifacius caused loss of Africa, by the way he finally killed Bonifacius.




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com