Worst Roman Emperor?

[Mental_Wizard]

@Tanc49 Then here I will defend my view of Diocletian.

Diocletian's Edit on Maximum Prices in 301 destroyed much of the Roman economy, and potentially set conditions for fedualism. The inflation that he caused made it impossible to pay the army in later years. I am also of the opinion that the Tetarchy was a bad thing. That is just asking for parts of the empire to break off, and IMO set the precedence for the chaos in multiple Emperors by the 5th century. Diocletian did not want the Tetarchy to become dynastic... it did. Constantine was betrothed to Maximian's daughter even! The system was flawed- and Diocletian allowed his successors to have at each other and destabilize the Empire while he was still alive. Power-sharing never seems to work out in the Roman Empire. The Severans who divided it were a disaster, the Constantinians just killed each other, and the Theodosians the same. The partnership between Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus was not as pronounced a split as these. In contrast, Aurelian was able to hold the entire Empire together during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and regained the lost territories. IMO it is he who should be thanked for Rome's survival.

Perhaps the worst part of Diocletian's Tetarchy however, was the accleration of the split between east and west. Internal trade and cultural contacts lessened as essentially foreign powers ruled in the other hal of the Empire. Persecutions of Christians (Diocletian) and pagans (later Emperors) were an attempt to standardize the religious orthodoxy of the state. However, this only aggravated the differences between East and West. His imperial command economy caused economic decline when implemented. The Empire being split should not have hurt it as much as did, but it did so, and made it near to impossible for the two halves to effectively cooperate under more than one ruler, and caused distrust and cultural differences in one part versus another. A personal theory of mine is that it indirectly gave usurpers legitimacy. The approval of Constantine as Caesar by Galerius does not seem that different from the appointments of Stilicho, Aetius, and other military strongmen. This thread is not here to debate the quality of those strongmen, but a semi-legal way to make your usurpation last is bad. Before, loyal troops may very well put down a revolt. But if an anti-Emperor can claim approval? Nope. IMO, tanc, he rebuilt the Empire into a carved up polarizing state and created a system that encouraged usurpers and caused mass inflation.

I wrote this simply to defend myself, and articulate my points to the best of my ability. Not trying to win any followers, and if better evidence against my points can be shown, I would accept it.

tl:dr; Diocletian is the worst. Economy bad. Tetarchy bad. Persecutions bad.

 

[Timaeus]

Hm. Marcus Aurelius.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

Also- for anyone questioning my decisions in what Emperors to put on the poll, I went with ones generally perceived as bad or once perceived as bad combined with my own opinions. Apologies if I did not include anyone's most hated Emperor.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Is there really a fair comparison here, all things considered? Opinion wise though, Caligula. His sheer insanity is something to be lamented at best.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

How on earth is Diocletian on this list, but not far worse Emperors like Honorius or Phocas?

 

[Mental_Wizard]

@Flavius Phocas I apologize for the lack of Honorius.

Phocas is not there, as I explained in the OP, I am limiting this to Roman Emperors. There was a thread already on Byzantine, which I feel he could be classified as. My thoughts on Diocletian are also shown in this thread.

 

[LouisTheGreyFox]

I don't really know much about ancient history than I should. I don't really know which Roman emperor was the worst to be fair, but then again I thought Julius Caesar or Nero would.

 

[Mustard]

Honestly, I can't see how Diocletian and Severus are considered 'bad' Emperors - I'd go as far as to say Diocletian was a great Emperor for ending the Crisis of the Third Century, and Severus was a good Emperor for the success of his military campaigns (such as the Roman expedition in Caledonia, which only fell apart after Severus' death).
In my opinion, the worst Emperor is definitely Commodus - not only was he a megalomaniac, but he also neglected the affairs of Government in favour of indulging in bizarre scandals (such as having a harem containing 300 women and 300 young boys).

 

[Tanc49]

@Tanc49 Then here I will defend my view of Diocletian.

Diocletian's Edit on Maximum Prices in 301 destroyed much of the Roman economy, and potentially set conditions for fedualism. The inflation that he caused made it impossible to pay the army in later years. I am also of the opinion that the Tetarchy was a bad thing. That is just asking for parts of the empire to break off, and IMO set the precedence for the chaos in multiple Emperors by the 5th century. Diocletian did not want the Tetarchy to become dynastic... it did. Constantine was betrothed to Maximian's daughter even! The system was flawed- and Diocletian allowed his successors to have at each other and destabilize the Empire while he was still alive. Power-sharing never seems to work out in the Roman Empire. The Severans who divided it were a disaster, the Constantinians just killed each other, and the Theodosians the same. The partnership between Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus was not as pronounced a split as these. In contrast, Aurelian was able to hold the entire Empire together during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and regained the lost territories. IMO it is he who should be thanked for Rome's survival.

Perhaps the worst part of Diocletian's Tetarchy however, was the accleration of the split between east and west. Internal trade and cultural contacts lessened as essentially foreign powers ruled in the other hal of the Empire. Persecutions of Christians (Diocletian) and pagans (later Emperors) were an attempt to standardize the religious orthodoxy of the state. However, this only aggravated the differences between East and West. His imperial command economy caused economic decline when implemented. The Empire being split should not have hurt it as much as did, but it did so, and made it near to impossible for the two halves to effectively cooperate under more than one ruler, and caused distrust and cultural differences in one part versus another. A personal theory of mine is that it indirectly gave usurpers legitimacy. The approval of Constantine as Caesar by Galerius does not seem that different from the appointments of Stilicho, Aetius, and other military strongmen. This thread is not here to debate the quality of those strongmen, but a semi-legal way to make your usurpation last is bad. Before, loyal troops may very well put down a revolt. But if an anti-Emperor can claim approval? Nope. IMO, tanc, he rebuilt the Empire into a carved up polarizing state and created a system that encouraged usurpers and caused mass inflation.

I wrote this simply to defend myself, and articulate my points to the best of my ability. Not trying to win any followers, and if better evidence against my points can be shown, I would accept it.

tl:dr; Diocletian is the worst. Economy bad. Tetarchy bad. Persecutions bad.

I see your point, it is a valid one but at least we can agree he tried and had good intentions, which sets him apart from the likes of Caracalla and Heliogabalus.

Some of his economic reforms were misguided but given the knowledge of economy of the time, it made sense.

His administrative reforms brought back order and control of a central, if regional power over fracturing areas. It all comes on the back of the crisis of the IIIrd century, which almost killed the empire, with its plagues and constant warfare.

He brought back order and stability, even if heavy handed.

Yes, a split happened after but can we blame him? The empire was maybe too big to be governed. Maybe it's a bit much to blame one guy for a multi century cultural shift.

Recognizing that split and creating a structure to try and keep it together meant that the empire lasted another 1000 years. Or at least 100 years.

Again on the misguided, my question would be: given the knowledge he had and the context, what could you (or me, or anyone) have done better?
While the answer is obvious for most of those bad emperors, it's less clear with him.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

@Flavius Phocas
Phocas is not there, as I explained in the OP, I am limiting this to Roman Emperors. There was a thread already on Byzantine, which I feel he could be classified as.

As much as I hate the term "Byzantine", fair enough. Although I am still a bit miffed because Phocas managed to screw up much worse, in a much shorter amount of time than arguably any Roman Emperor I can recall at the moment.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

Honorius has been added. My mistake in overlooking him. Feel free to change your votes to him if you feel so inclined.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

@Flavius Phocas Not my favorite term either. I just did not want to rehash an old thread that already existed.

 

[Yorel]

I'd have a tendency to go with Commodus because he was an extremly poor Emperor, was assassinated because of such and his death basically caused the Third Century Crisis. The Severans came after true, but I think the Empire already suffered from cracks resulting from Commodus' reigns.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I think Commodus gets unfairly blamed for "ending Rome's golden age" or some such silly thing as that. Sure he was a bad Emperor, but all states have bad rulers occasionally. If the Roman Empire was fundamentally sound when he came to power, his rule wouldn't have been enough to put it in a tailspin.

On the whole I'm probably going to have to go with Caligula, followed closely by Elagabalus and slightly less closely by Nero, mostly because they were all a few gladiators short of an arena. Honorius was pretty bad too, but because he was just weak instead of insane I think he loses out on the top spot.

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.

Theodosius nevertheless attacked Eugenius, who was quite cooperative, and subsequently eradicated a large part of the Western army.

Arbogast had (probably) murdered the Emperor Valentinian II and set up a usurper in his place. No Emperor at any time in Rome's history would have let that pass, much less in the fourth century when Emperors were only ever one defeat away from usurpation. For Theodosius to accept Eugenius would have been both to invite further instability and to essentially stick a great big "Depose and murder me" sign on his own back. As for leaving the Empire to Arcadius and Honorius, it had been the Romans' custom since the days of Augustus for Emperors with legitimate male heirs to leave the Empire to them, and blaming Theodosius for following centuries-old inheritance customs seems a bit much; short of not dying, there wasn't really much else he could have done.

Although I am still a bit miffed because Phocas managed to screw up much worse, in a much shorter amount of time than arguably any Roman Emperor I can recall at the moment.

I think Phocas is another Emperor who tends to get the short historiographical straw in such discussions. The war against the Persians wasn't going well when he was deposed, but all the spectacular Roman losses -- of Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt -- happened on Heraclius' watch.

 

[Tanc49]

I think Commodus gets unfairly blamed for "ending Rome's golden age" or some such silly thing as that. Sure he was a bad Emperor, but all states have bad rulers occasionally. If the Roman Empire was fundamentally sound when he came to power, his rule wouldn't have been enough to put it in a tailspin.

On the whole I'm probably going to have to go with Caligula, followed closely by Elagabalus and slightly less closely by Nero, mostly because they were all a few gladiators short of an arena. Honorius was pretty bad too, but because he was just weak instead of insane I think he loses out on the top spot.

For the insane, Caracalla is definitely up there.

Nero was a jet setter gone bad, Justin Bieber with absolute power. Heliogabalus was crazy but not trying to hurt too many people.

Caracalla was murderously insane, a psychopath who killed his own brother in his mother's arms.

 

[Flavius Phocas]

I think Phocas is another Emperor who tends to get the short historiographical straw in such discussions. The war against the Persians wasn't going well when he was deposed, but all the spectacular Roman losses -- of Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt -- happened on Heraclius' watch.

That is correct, however the war against the Persians would likely not have started in the first place had he not deposed Maurice. Not to mention Phocas went out of his way to make as many enemies as possibile, taking actions against certain religious minorities at the worst possibile time. Thus creating defections in the army which further weakened the Roman position in a war which was started because of him.

While Heraclius temporarily lost Egypt and Syria, he spent that time preparing to strike back against the Persians, and despite being in an unfavourable position he did an admirable job winning the territories back. Heraclius simply just had bad luck when the Arabs showed up, as I don't think anyone at the time could have predicted that.

 

[Skallagrim]

Worst emperor. Well, what is "worst"? The various contenders lived and reigned in different times and circumstances. Sometimes they were just men who would have been moderately bad in another age, but happened to rule at the worst possible moment. I think perhaps we should ask ourselves: which of the various "bad" emperors would be bad under any circumstance? The answer becomes pretty clear, pretty soon.

I would not want to live under Caligula, Caracalla or Commodus ever. With those kind of men in charge, you are not safe, regardless of the era or your social position or background. If a monster is on the throne, and times are terrible, and there is a great enemy, and the monster happens to be a military genius-- then maybe we can say it as all for the best. But this was not the case in any of these three instances, nor is it usually the case at all.

Generally, I'd say Caligula is the worst Roman emperor... but only barely beating out Caracalla. Both were highly disturbing figures who did things that cannot be excused by "the standards of the time" or anything like that. Even if only half of what we are told by the histories of their terrible actions is true... they're still grade-A monsters.

Commodus wasn't as bad as those two, but he was also pretty bad. There's a bit of a revisionist tendency these days to treat all the horror-stories about him with a pinch of salt, mostly identifying him as just totally unfit to rule. That last bit is true, but Commodus was a monstrously cruel man regardless. Again, even by the standards of the day. Rounding up "undesirables", handing them butcher's knives, and forcing them to carve each other to death in the arena? Not exactly a confidence-inspiring sort of policy. The fact that Commodus comes off better than Caligula and Caracalla tells us volumes about how terrible they were.

So those three, in that order, would be my leading contenders in general. Two others who were obviously bad and unfit to rule were Nero and Elegabalus. Nero gets a terrible reputation, but was mostly just a really bad "artist" with delusions of grandeur... and a very poor financial administrator. Of all his many faults, his crushing taxes were the worst of his deeds. (And if we're going to call emperors out on their economic stupidity, Diocletian is indeed far worse than Nero.) Elegabalus, on the other hand, isn't so terrible at all by comparison. Clearly rather... unusual, and his strange desires and antics caused major problems... but in no way equal to the far more dangerous problems of the above figures. Also, far more than Commodus, there is quite some evidence that many of the stories about Elegabalus were exaggerated later on, to discredit him. At least to some extent. So I'd say he as unfit to rule, but not the kind of monster some call him. A healthy state could easily survive a reign such as his without any lasting problems.


If we do not act by such abstract standards, and instead wonder whose reign was worst for Rome in the long run... I'm actually in agreement with @Mental_Wizard. Diocletian's policies were objectively terrible, and later led to a lot of problems. Het gets credited with solving the crisis? Credit that is not his due by any means, if you ask me. His inflationary monetary policies were a terrible example for later rulers, who eagerly imitated them... which I consider a major cause for Rome's ultimate fall. Runaway inflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy. While Diocletian wasn't the first to debase the money, he did it on such a scale that I consider him the progenitor of this whole problem, which would continue to haunt Rome. His edit on maximum prices, while less horrible in the long run (because it didn't get imitated), caused major problems and suffering in the short term (as such policies always do). While later revoked, the damage was done.

His persecution of Christians was so terrible that I consider it a major cause for Christian violence in destroying pagan culture later on. Theirs was a bloody revenge. While Christian institutions later co-opted pagan centres of learning etc., Christianity did destroy a lot of pagan institutions soon after it came into power. I trace that back to a sense of virulent enmity, in which persecutions such as the only by Diocletian (especially that one, even) must be considered the central impetus. Without Diocletian and his persecution, I really feel the earliest two centuries of Christian dominance in Rome would have involved far less destruction of pagan history and legacy, and more early co-opting instead. The world would be richer for it.

Also, like @Mental_Wizard, I also blame him for furthering and accelerating the split between east and west. It was a bad move, ultimately.


So. Depending on the criteria, I'd say either Caligula (the worst man, and the one I'd least like to live under) or Diocletian (who hurt Rome the most in the long run). I'll vote for Caligula, since I consider those criteria to be more objective, but I just wanted to take a moment to back up @Mental_Wizard's position regarding Diocletian.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

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.

To be completely fair, Honorius did in the end appoint a competent successor to Stilicho. Constantius III was one of Stilicho's men, and was certainly a better general, and arguably just as competent a politician and diplomat. It's just, well, he died. That said, Honorius's rule was disastrous, and Honorius is largely to blame, though Stilicho himself deserves some blame for his self-destructive conflict with Constantinople.

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

Hm. Marcus Aurelius.

I don't know. I don't think one can hold "Didn't kill his own son" against him for something based on hindsight.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Arbogast had (probably) murdered the Emperor Valentinian II and set up a usurper in his place.

Personally, I never found this convincing. Arbogast had almost nothing to gain from murdering Valentinian and everything to lose. Arbogast didn't really have to fear Valentinian's dismissal since he would almost certainly have the backing of Theodosius in remaining on-and in any case, Valentinian didn't seem to object when Arbogast refused to be dismissed. Once Valentinian was dead, Arbogast didn't have much choice in preparing for war, since Theodosius would suspect foul play, and in any case his wife (Valentinians sister), would be, for obvious reasons egging him on to get rid of Arbogast. That it took him 3 months to find a replacement emperor suggests this wasn't a situation he had expected to be in.