Worst Roman Emperor?

Who in your opinion was the worst roman emperor?

  • Augustus

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • Caligula

    Votes: 22 27.2%
  • Nero

    Votes: 12 14.8%
  • Domitian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Commodus

    Votes: 10 12.3%
  • Caracalla

    Votes: 5 6.2%
  • Elagabalus

    Votes: 12 14.8%
  • Maximinus Thrax

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Constantine

    Votes: 4 4.9%
  • Constantius II

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jovian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gratian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Honorius

    Votes: 7 8.6%
  • Valentian III

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Total voters
    81
Just curious, what do you think is so bad about Theodosius that he would be even behind those guys?

Theodosius prohibited traditional Roman and Hellenistic religion, as well as Arian Christianity. He outlawed Polytheistic religious practices. Theodosius ended the Olympic Games, one of many Polytheistic festivals. He also permitted the massacre of Roman citizens by the Gothic mercenary garrison of Thessalonika, in 390 CE. Imposing a single religion on a large and diverse population always leads to civil unrest.
 
Last edited:
Theodosius prohibited traditional Roman and Hellenistic religion, as well as Arian Christianity. He outlawed Polytheistic religious practices. Theodosius ended the Olympic Games, one of many Polytheistic festivals. He also permitted the massacre of Roman citizens by the Gothic mercenary garrison of Thessalonika, in 390 CE. Imposing a single religion on a large and diverse population always leads to civil unrest.

I figured this had something to do with this, although I didn't want to try to speak for you and be wrong.
 

mojojojo

Gone Fishin'
Elagabalus was just a psychopath plain and simple, a religious zealot he forced his god, El-Gabal, down the rest of Rome's throat. Elgabalus also showed a complete disregard for roman morals when he not only married a Vestal virgin but was openly transsexual.
Say what you will about him. He did know how to throw a party!
 
Odd choice here, but a case can be made for Marcus Aurelius.

Really.

He's the last of the Five Good Emperors and the only one who didn't adopt his eventual heir. From Trajan onwards, the heir had been selected on the basis of both personal ability and political suitability. Marcus Aurelius changed that when his decided his son should succeed him.

If the tradition of adoption had been maintained, Rome may have had a longer golden age until the Plague of Cyprian arrived.


Bill
I would agree with this. Sometimes the person who makes the really bad mistake or does not resolve a major problem that everyone can see is worse than the complete nutter.
 
I would agree with this. Sometimes the person who makes the really bad mistake or does not resolve a major problem that everyone can see is worse than the complete nutter.
Fair point; Marcus Aurelius is one of those examples of an odd phenomenon I've noticed sometimes; when something gets enacted as a temporary measure due to unfavorable circumstances (like adopting an heir when you don't have a blood one) and works so much better than normal methods, they still go back to doing things the normal way. It never seems to have occured to the Emperors to make adoption a permenant policy, even when it became clear it works so much better than succession by blood.
 
I d' say Caligula and Commodus... Caligula really messed up with the institutions and the Empire and Commodus was degenerous and lunatic enough to push the Empire into a long decline after a serie of Good Emperors who achieved much for Roman Empire... I wont consider Constantine I the gravedigger of Western Empire... Simply because Roman Empire had grown too much to be defended properly at least in Gaul/Britain border which were flooded with numerous barbarian tribes waiting for the right time to enter... Even if some Emperor managed to secure the Western borders either the barbarians would have moved east or they would wait until the next civil war when some usurper would pull out the troops to attack Italy... As for Theodosius I he was partially responsible for atrocities commited by Goths but he couldnt do anything to stop them... After the disastrous battle of Adrianople Goths grew unexpectedly strong and Theodosius had to ally with them in order not to threaten him (at least the eastern part which was richer in resources). After Constantine I Christianity had grew also to strong to be stopped... So here too Theodosius I hasnt too much options... Julian's brief reign and tragic end were still vivid (and also the rumours that he was murdered by Christians)... If Theodosius I doesnt support Christianity he might as well fell victim to a christian plot and become a footnote in history... And if Theodosius dies soon enough the Empire dies with him...
 
Theodosius may have inherited the Gothic problem in eastern Europe from Valens and Gratian, but he was a true believer in the Nicene Creed. He was close to Bishop Ambrosius of Milan, who was an opponent of the Arians, Roman Polytheists, and was also an advisor to previous Emperors such as Valentinian I and II, and Gratian. Theodosius wasn't some hapless figurehead, he was willing to do anything the Church asked of him. As an Emperor, Theodosius "the great" cannot be compared to Augustus, Trajan, or Hadrian.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Commodus wasn't actually THAT bad, but he was terrible in comparison to the Emperors that preceded him. But what really hurt the Empire was when he died. After his death, their was no heir, and the throne fell to general after general, eventually culminating in the 3rd Century Crisis.
 
Top