Okay fellas, just remind me, who was simply the worst roman emperor in history...

Okay fellas, just remind me, who was simply the worst roman emperor in history? Who went out of their way to weaken the empire through their selfish shortsightedness, and pettiness? Who was Rome's weakest link?

Constantine the "Great".

>who was simply the worst roman emperor in history

Francis II
He lost at Austerlitz and the Roman Empire thus ended

Diocletian was responsible for killing the Western Empire. He damned it.

Memers will throw out shitty post-Diocletian emperors, mostly Honorius, as shittier ones, but it was ultimately Diocletian policies that set the West's already evident decline into full force.
>inb4 muh cabbages

>HOLY

The tetrarchy was clearly unsustainable, but otherwise he did a good job. He laid the foundation for feudalism by allowing farmers to pay taxes in produce, greatly reducing the size of administrative units while expanding the administration to reduce the power of individual Gentry, tying farmers to their land, and revoking any special privileges for latins. Feudalism was certainly a superior system than Rome during the crisis.

Mustafa Kamal Ataturk

>He laid the foundation for feudalism
I'm sure Odoacer appreciated the fragmentation of the Western Empire greatly

t. pagancuck

Also he persecuted and killed thousands of Christians for no reason.

But the Sultan of Rome stayed in power until 1922.

>the sultan called himself Kayser-i-Rum
>not even saying Rome properly

This is patently false

Kys retarded weeb

>implying this is bad
>implying those Jewish agents didn't deserve it

>t. buttblasted jew

Yet his reign was invaluable for the Christianization of the Empire. By making the Emperor the Religious Authority of the Empire, he paved the way for Theodosius to make Christianity the Religion in the Empire

he was a literal larper

>muh larping
And yet he still managed to trigger the early Church so much they couldn't even counter his arguments.

Fragmentation of power is superior to a monopoly that creates constant paralyzing power struggles. Later emperor's complacency in the face of crisis was not diocletians fault.

>Fragmentation of power is superior to a monopoly that creates constant paralyzing power struggles
Not when you want to rally a large army. Also, separating the East from the West disallows the use of the rich Eastern Empire to support West from attack.

And allowed the east to survive for another thousand years, so there's that.

The East had its own enemies to fight, retard.

That was solely Constantine and Theodosius II. Without Constantinople and the Walls, Byzantium would have fallen at some point to the Goths, the Arabs, or the Bulgars, depending.
Diocletian has absolutely no credit there.

Diocletian's reforms created the bureaucracy that formed the administrative core of the Byzantine empire

Yes, but splitting it into 4 distinct Empires, as the idea went, was nonsense. When you do that, you instill jealousy or make it impossible to coordinate.
There should have been 4 Caesars and 1 overall Augustus, whose job was to make sure the Empire ran coherently.

The Reason Diocletian split the Empire was because it was under siege from all angles, and completely splitting them apart ruins the ability to cohesively push back from afflicted areas

>thou hast conquered, Galilean

:^)

That's very interesting, but Bureaucracy didn't save Byzantium

the romans were black

Each area needed imperial attention; this wasn't a new idea, Marcus Aurelius and Gallienus had both done similar things. He wasn't splitting it into distinct entities but increasing the number of people who could answer high priority questions.
>There should have been 4 Caesars and 1 overall Augustus, whose job was to make sure the Empire ran coherently.
Would've changed nothing, as the civil wars of the Tetrarchy were a result primarily of people who were excluded (Maxentius) being angry, not of a rivalry between the Emperors.
>completely splitting them apart
He didn't do this, laws passed in one area were still applicable in all other areas and armies could be raised across the empire

After Adrianople it essentially did

Augustus
Hadrian
Trajan
Justinian
Commodus

I mean probably commodus. No one else got their name forever associated with shit.

>who is Constantine V Corpronymos, literally "the shit-named"

>Justinian
>Bad
Pure meme. If not for the Plague, he'd have restored the Empire in full.
That's not where commode comes from

>he'd have restored the Empire in full

Justinian's attempt to reconquer the West was a complete and utter misallocation of resources (namely, Belisaurus) which only served to create a power vacuum for the Muslims and Lombards. If I recall correctly it also ruined the notion in place where the Germanic kingdoms of the former WRE still recognized the legitimacy of the East as Rome.

>"""ROMAN"""

Cummodus

>who was simply the worst roman emperor in history?

nobody ever picks him, but the worst was maximian