Worst Roman Emperor?

[Mental_Wizard]

I found a thread already existing about worst Byzantine. I felt it only right that worst Roman Emperor should be debated here too.

My thoughts... (just bullets for now- I can clarify on my positions if needed)

worst- Diocletian (economic reasons, spending + succession chaos)
second worst- Commodus (long-term damage, concessions to barbarians)
third worst- Caracalla (economic and concessions to barbarians)
fourth worst- Caligula(concessions to barbarians)
fifth worst- Elagabalus (general issues)

What does that say about these guys that they are higher than little boots and beat out Nero on my list.

Not to mention most of them killed many thousands of innocent people... but I am grading based on stability and power of the Empire... not personal deeds. I know many will disagree with me about Diocletian, but I wholeheartedly believe he was the worst.

Edit: Changed Domitian to Caligula.

Thoughts?

 

[Heliogabalus]

My username should give you an idea of how much I appreciate the, uh... "eccentricness" of Elagabalus.

 

[desmirelle]

Caligula. Because not only was he groomed by Tiberius, he embodies the phrase "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Actually, I'm thinking the senate was as bad as the emperors. they kept handing over power, no matter what the guy before him did....

 

[Avrorrange]

I am thinking about Honorius.The man's incompetence was fatal for the Western Empire.

 

[DominusNovus]

Interesting that I agree with the reasons for rating Diocletian so poorly, but disagree that it merits him a poor rating. His economic policies, while horrid, were attempted in a pre-industrial society incapable of imposing them. And his succession chaos proved rather mild: It was a gradual, drawn out series of small civil wars, rather than a gigantic melee, with plenty of compromises being reached between the rival leaders, giving them each time to maintain their section of the Empire. Given that it resulted in a very capable Emperor in the end, Constantine, I can't fault Diocletian too much.

I can't decide on a single worst, since I can come up with reasons to defend each. So I'll go with Hadrian, because screw Hadrian.

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

I'd say probably Maximinus Thrax. Maybe Severus for long term consequences.

Domitian and Gallienus I'd say are probably underrated Emperors rather than the among the worst.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Michael VIII.

Took an Empire that was in a reasonable position at the start of his reign in 1259 and left it in 1282 heavily divided religiously, near bankrupt, an eastern frontier nearly completely devoid of defenses, and generally set the stage for the disastrous reign of Andronikos II.

He actually set the stage for what would turn out to be a terrible 14th century.

 

[Pischinovski]

I am thinking about Honorius.The man's incompetence was fatal for the Western Empire.

I have to disagree. We know little about Honorius, but it does seem like the circumstances permitted for him to actually prove his worth as a ruler. He was constantly in the shadow of mighty generals who had no interest in actually sharing power with him.
I would rather blame the West's poor performance on his father, Theodosius "the Great". He started a civil war, which could have been easily avoided, and subsequently utterly destroyed the Western army making it in turn even more dependent on foederati. The foederati who were already in his service were alienated by him because he used them as cannon fodder and because Christian orthodoxy became an increasingly politicised issue.
And in the end he left the empire to Arcadius, a teenager, and Honorius, a child.

(but I wouldn't argue that Teddy was the worst either)

 

[Thesaurus Rex]

Nothing other than the terrible Caesar Billus Prestonius, or 'Bill' for short. Said to be such an awful Emperor, they wrote him straight outta the history books.

 

[James XI]

The theme of 'beloved by the people and army but hated by the Senate' is a jumpstart to almost anyone considered terrible. I never know exactly how to account for that effect on posterity.

 

[Major Major]

There was always Emperor Detritius . . .

. . . the young Detritus, a favorite of the troops, was located cowering under his bed in the palace; hoisting him upon their shoulders, the soldiers acclaimed him as emperor; and the populace was constrained to accept, what it could not alter; the new emperor was of a choleric disposition; he stuttered when he spoke, limped, was blind in one eye, given to convulsions, had six fingers on his left hand, had never mastered feeding himself, and, despite his tender age of seven years when he acceded the throne, was given over to several dozens of the vilest perversions; nevertheless, his scholarly mastery of birdcalls disposed the affection of the citizenry, and attracted the favor of the historians, to his person; the government of Detritus was marked by the most violent wave of cruel proscriptions; the unsubstantiated word of the informer was sufficient to compel the most aged and respectable citizen to the torturer’s rack; the treasury was beggared by riotous luxuries and lavish building; half the eastern provinces were lost to hostile incursions; and the consequences to the empire might have been disastrous had the emperor’s reign outlasted the space of half an hour; but the wretched ruler succumbed to a draught of poison administered by the empress Aphasia, or perhaps his mother, or both . . .

 

[Stolengood]

This needs to be multiple choice.

 

[Avrorrange]

I have to disagree. We know little about Honorius, but it does seem like the circumstances permitted for him to actually prove his worth as a ruler. He was constantly in the shadow of mighty generals who had no interest in actually sharing power with him.
I would rather blame the West's poor performance on his father, Theodosius "the Great". He started a civil war, which could have been easily avoided, and subsequently utterly destroyed the Western army making it in turn even more dependent on foederati. The foederati who were already in his service were alienated by him because he used them as cannon fodder and because Christian orthodoxy became an increasingly politicised issue.
And in the end he left the empire to Arcadius, a teenager, and Honorius, a child.

(but I wouldn't argue that Teddy was the worst either)

I'm convinced that he had plenty of opportunity to assert himself if he was competent.Stilicho was as loyal as you can get as a guardian,but Honorius had the man killed.The fact that he had his top man killed and was unable to either assert competent personal rule or actually appoint a competent successor to Stilicho was what made Honorius a highly incompetent ruler.The events that followed Stilicho's death showed that the guy was an idiot and so was the people he associates himself with.

 

[Stolengood]

I'd say probably Maximinus Thrax.

The anniversary of his ascension to the purple was just noted by Wikipedia, incidentally.

 

[Mikestone8]

Valentinian III.

Killing Aetius was the dumbest thing (as well as one of the nastiest) that any Emperor ever did.

Runner-up - probably Honorius for killing Stilicho.

 

[Pischinovski]

I'm convinced that he had plenty of opportunity to assert himself if he was competent.Stilicho was as loyal as you can get as a guardian,but Honorius had the man killed.The fact that he had his top man killed and was unable to either assert competent personal rule or actually appoint a competent successor to Stilicho was what made Honorius a highly incompetent ruler.The events that followed Stilicho's death showed that the guy was an idiot and so was the people he associates himself with.

I am not claiming that Honorius was a good emperor. He was rather bad, but he wasn't the worst. The circumstances were not in his favor at all. His father had already planted the seeds of the West's downfall. Stilicho was overtrown and murdered because he was faced with invasions and internal revolts. Stilicho was the true ruler of the West and despite his ambition and talent (or because of it) he was unable to assert imperial authority over Alaric, Constantine, the Suebs, the Vandals, the Alans and the Burgundians. Why did he fail? Because the West lacked the manpower, due to Theodosius slaughtering the Western field army at the Battle of Frigidus.

 

[Avrorrange]

I am not claiming that Honorius was a good emperor. He was rather bad, but he wasn't the worst. The circumstances were not in his favor at all. His father had already planted the seeds of the West's downfall. Stilicho was overtrown and murdered because he was faced with invasions and internal revolts. Stilicho was the true ruler of the West and despite his ambition and talent (or because of it) he was unable to assert imperial authority over Alaric, Constantine, the Suebs, the Vandals, the Alans and the Burgundians. Why did he fail? Because the West lacked the manpower, due to Theodosius slaughtering the Western field army at the Battle of Frigidus.

Stilicho was the true ruler of the West because Honorius was simply uninterested in ruling.The internal revolts had a large part to do with Honorius himself backing Stilicho's opposition.He wasted his reign doing nothing of note and when he finally does something,it's to kill the man who has been holding his empire all these years simply because he thinks that Stilicho might depose him.He was the worst emperor by virtue of him being such an incompetent ruler at such a critical hour.I'm sure plenty of emperors on this list could have actually done far worst in a similar situation,but Honorius himself probably has the most blame in the final collapse of the empire.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Theodosius "the Destroyer of the Western Armies" gets my vote.

 

[Pischinovski]

Stilicho was the true ruler of the West because Honorius was simply uninterested in ruling.The internal revolts had a large part to do with Honorius himself backing Stilicho's opposition.He wasted his reign doing nothing of note and when he finally does something,it's to kill the man who has been holding his empire all these years simply because he thinks that Stilicho might depose him.He was the worst emperor by virtue of him being such an incompetent ruler at such a critical hour.I'm sure plenty of emperors on this list could have actually done far worst in a similar situation,but Honorius himself probably has the most blame in the final collapse of the empire.

Stilicho was the true ruler because Honorius was 10 years old when his father died. Stilicho was also married to Honorius' cousin, married his son to Honorius' sister and his daughters to Honorius himself. He also portrayed himself in his propaganda (Claudian) as an imperial father figure. Stilicho had no interests in actually sharing power with the boy and later young man who was supposed to be the actual ruler of the West.
Like I said, I don't believe Honorius was a good emperor. But blaming the disintegration of the West on him is wrong. Blaming it on any single person is wrong. Not mentioning Theodosius when talking about Honorius is worse.

The man knew what he was knowing, in contrast to his son, he was an experienced ruler and commander, who certainly possessed a good grasp of the military situation of the Western army. Theodosius nevertheless attacked Eugenius, who was quite cooperative, and subsequently eradicated a large part of the Western army.

 

[Tanc49]

Oh come on, Diocletian is the guy who rebuilt the empire and created a system to rule it.

If we blame him for his successors, Marcus Aurelius needs to be up there as well