Best and Worst Roman Emperors

*shitposts in Etruscan*

my boy built the city from the wild. tied an ox to the center of the holy. my boy built the city, but he could not count the days. 354. How many suns does it take to roll the moon. 354

reminder that answering nero or caligula means you dont know shit and think some randoms had a bigger impact than the guys who actually wrecked the empire

>best
aurelian
constantine
augustus

>worst
honorious
valentinian III
caracalla

>shitty rulers who inherited a shitty empire are worse than shitty rulers that ruined a well off empire.

Caligula is kind of a meme, but Nero was pure fuck-up

>Best
Augustus
Marcus Aurelius
Trajan

>Worst
Constantine
Commodus
Nero

>Personal Favourite
Julian

>romulus
>actually existing
lmao

Numa was pretty based

>Julian
The one that bought the emperorship????

The one that almost saved the empire.

Mah nigga

>Best
Basil II
Alexios I
Heraclius

>Worst
Phocas
Irene
Isaac II

>Favorite
Justinian II

>Trajan
>Greek shit Larpers post-Justinian
Garbage.

hard to justify it when vespasian fixes everything and every emperor from him to marcus aurelius was a great emperor, nero did not fuck up on the scale of the downgrade from theodosius to honorious

>Elagabalus
>FUCK ME SOLDIER

Seriously though, how much of it do you think its true and how much is it all just political shitflinging from his opponents that survived the course of history?

bugs..... take it easy on them carrots

>Best
Augustus -- the longest reigning and most prosperous leader in Roman history
Trajan -- long, politically stable regime that brought Rome to its greatest territorial extent
Constantine -- finished the job Diocletian started of adjusted Roman society to its new realities. Monetary reforms lasted for nearly 1,000 years

>worst
Commodus -- At the precise moment when Rome needed a strong leader the most, Commodus was a flashy celebrity showman who blew the state budget on mindless spectacle
Caracalla -- the cuntiest cunt who ever cunted. Totally fucked Rome's citizenship model
Severus Alexander -- his mother ruled the empire, was totally incapable of preventing the crisis of the third century

>Overrated
Marcus Aurelius -- spent almost his entire reign on the frontier slaughtering invading Germanic hordes. Wrote philosophy because what else is there to do when you're sitting in a military camp for years on end bored out of your mind?
Diocletian -- totally fucked the economy and laid the groundwork for proto-feudalism
Julian the Apostate -- died like a bitch waging a profit war against Persia, didn't even come close to preserving paganism against the rising tide of Christianity

>Sleeper hit
Claudius -- amazing what happens when a thoughtful, intelligent social autist gets promoted to high office
Valentinian I -- "the wrathful" infamously strict, mercilessly punished corruption, had a temper so severe it made the history books.
Domitian -- told the arrogant, ineffectual senate to go pound sand, beloved by the people and the army

>Too good for this shitty world
Pertinax -- an adept administrator with strong Republican values who was murdered by his own henchmen because he didn't increase their already bloated salaries
Valerian -- poor bastard had the shittiest luck in Roman history, getting repeatedly BLACKED by forces outside his control.
Elagabalus -- don't lie Veeky Forums, he's /ourguy/. Would have loved pregnant Anne Frank memes

...

>best
augustus
vespasian
dominitan

>worst
caracalla
comodus
elgabalus

>Best
Augustus
Caesar
Trajan

>Worst
Nero
Honorius
Caligula

>Trajan
>politically stable
>greatest territorial extent at the cost of defending Rome's northern and western borders against Germanic tribes
>would be one of the key factors in the instability in the third century and the Roman crisis
>also due to his failure in having his conquest actually hold any form of permanency, this would be the last time ever Rome would attempt an actual war of conquest
Trajan is over-rated.

>Caracalla -- the cuntiest cunt who ever cunted. Totally fucked Rome's citizenship model
I think the bigger problem with him was how he pampered the army to the extent he did, giving us the whole barrack emperor problem which destroyed all of Rome's traditions of government.
>Severus Alexander -- his mother ruled the empire, was totally incapable of preventing the crisis of the third century
Kind of unfair given that he was just a kid for most of the time.

Really agree with your overrated list.

TIberius did nothing wrong, had he followed any other emperor he wouldn't have been judged so harshly

>best
Anthemius
Majorian
Aurelian
>worst
Hadrian
Commodus
Diocletian
>personal favorites
Vespasian
Trajan
Marcus Aurelius

Valentinian's death is still one of the funniest things I've ever heard about
>GEEEEEEERMAAAAAAANS
>AUUUUUUUUGH
>GERMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS
>GET OUUUUUUUUUUT
>AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>GERMAAAAA-
>*head explodes*

*blocks your rude envoy*

>Best
Augustus
Hadrian
Aurelian

>Worst
Honorius
Commodus
Phocas

>Favorites
Hadrian
Majorian
Vespasian

>I think the bigger problem with him was how he pampered the army to the extent he did, giving us the whole barrack emperor problem which destroyed all of Rome's traditions of government.
meh, he was just rolling with the advice that his father Septimius Severus, gave him. Caracalla dug his own grave by pissing off just about everyone that ever had the misfortune of knowing him

>Kind of unfair given that he was just a kid for most of the time.
Perhaps, but he did live to be older than Elagabalus, reigning for 13 years, dying in his mid-20's when he should have been more than ready to assume control. And of all the Emperors his death was by far the pussiest, even worse than Caracalla being stabbed in the back while taking a piss: his own troops butchered him while he was in a military tent REEEE'ing at his mother for ruining his life.

If you want to give the lad a break, honorary mentions for shittiest emperor could go to:
Didius Julianus -- What the fuck was he thinking that the army would just roll over and take orders from some dandy aristocrat who literally purchased his way to power? It was his ascension what really lead to the military staging a hostile take-over and putting the Severans on the throne
Gordian II -- probably prolonged the crisis for far longer than it should have gone on by setting a precedent where Emperors proved their manliness to the army by leading the charge and fighting in the melee on the front lines. All it did was make it so that Emperors were getting whacked in battle needlessly
Valens -- the anti-Caesar: did not know what the fuck he was doing and led his army to the most devastating defeat in Roman history at Adrianople, which marked the beginning of the end for the Western Roman Empire
Honorius -- murdered the one man keeping the empire together out of petty jealousy. Spent his days obsessing over a bunch of chickens

>Adrianople
I think Edessa was far worse.

>Best
Augustus
Alexios Komnenos
Constantine
>Worst
Constantine X
Honorius
Valarian
>Goodnight, sweet prince tier
Majorian
Constantine XI

Edessa was a humiliating and brutal defeat to be sure, but the Persians simply couldn't capitalize on it that much, raiding Cilicia but repulsed by a Roman force led by Macrianus.

Adrianople was flat out devastating, resulting in the destruction of the core army of the eastern Empire, the deaths of valuable administrators, and the destruction of all of the arms factories on the Danube. And in the Roman psyche all of a sudden Germanics went from being the filthy savages that Rome had always smacked around to basically calling the shots militarily from then on out.

>best
Catherine, Peter, Nicholas

>worst
Suleiman, Selim, Mehmet

>Best
Augustus - no explanation needed
Aurelian - From almost unmatched military success to surprisingly foresighted monetary reform, as well as cracking down on corruption, and pretty much single-handedly saving the empire, Aurelian is hands down one of Rome's greatest historical rulers
Anastasius - Absolutely criminally underrated, was wise enough to greatly strengthen the economy of the empire instead of wasting it on fruitless wars with Persia. His reign provided the empire's strength that Memestinian then overspent a few decades later.

>Worst
Caracalla
Honorius
Phocas

>Deserved better
Pertinax
Marcus Aurelius - He was clearly capable and wanted the best for Rome but had to spend his entire reign freezing in army camps fighting savages. Also had to deal with the effects of the Antonine plague.
Majorian

>Best
Diocletian
Constantine
Augustus

>Worst
Nero
The transsexual one
The one that got skinned

>Persians simply couldn't capitalize on it
The next 30+ odd years from Ardashir to Shapur was constant raids, razings, looting, and plundering of Roman territories and provinces in Mesoptamia and the Levant. Hell they lost Armenia repeatedly during that entire time so I would disagree heavily on "not capitalize" on it. Persians would only have their successes reversed partly due to the ineptness of Narses.

Edessa was what turned the third century crisis from a pretty bad political mess into an all-out collapse of the entire imperial system

>Catherine and Nicholas
>Better than Suleiman and Selim
kek

>Edgy
>Faggot

>Edgy
You don't know what edgy is but most people have reversed their opinions on Trajan because wholesale land grabbing doesn't necessarily equate to success or longetivity in an empire, especially when the expenditure and cost of manpower have almost no returns for Trajan's failed conquest of the Parthian Empire.
>Faggot
Nah.

Kek

You can blame the Jews for the immediate failure of his campaign, but it's true that his "conquests" in Mesopotamia were totally unsustainable. Hadrian had the right idea.
Trying to LARP as Alexander was the undoing of a fair number of Roman generals/emperors in the east - just about the only guy who had it right was Septimius Severus interestingly enough: invade Persia, fuck their shit up a bit, sack Ctesiphon, grab some minor gains in upper Mesopotamia, sign a peace treaty and get the fuck out.

post more pics to back up your claims

>Septimus Severus
He got wrecked by Ardashir when he invaded Ctesiphon, what are you talking about.

>Best
Augustus
Vespasian
Trajan

>Worst
Commodus
Galerius
Theodosius I

>Favorite
Constantius II
Majorian
Domitian

>Least Favorite
Septimius Severus
Theodosius I
Trajan

Nothing against Trajan as a ruler, just that I find his time to be very, very dull and don't really find the man himself particularly interesting. Makes him odd company with Septimius Severus who I consider a duplicitous moron and Theodosius I who I consider I absolutely despise. If you had to ask me whether I consider him the worst I'd have to stop and think because he's almost as bad as Commodus in my eyes.

Severus only fought the Parthians, not Persians.

That was Didius Julianus. Not his fault the Praetorians auctioned off the throne after killing Pertinax because he didn't want to coddle them. Also it was supposedly his wife and daughter who harangued him into going and putting in a bid over Pertinax's father-in-law.

>saved the empire
>[laughs in Sassanid]

>Best
Justinian
Heraclius
Constantine

>Worst
Constans II
whoever was successor of Basil II
Phocas

faggot thinks cloudface god of moses wasnt actually a real living thing? you also are the same faggot from ireland who thought alligators were a myth> same nigger who thought pada bears were a myth?

Coming from an admittedly armature angle, here we go:

>top
Augustus - no explanation needed
Aurelian - Ditto. The fact he got murdered by intrigue is severe bullshit
-Vespasian - Chose him cos he seemed a fairly well rounded chap, with his rusticalities putting him in touch with the common man, and an astute mind for economics - albeit limited.

>worst
Commodus - the stone that starts the avalance
Caracalla - Some petty Joffrey shit
Elagabalus - Wut? How?

>Underrated
Domition - BTFO the Senate (and paid for it), streamlines civil service via meritocracy, loved by people and army.
Claudius - Portrayed as a stuttering fool, actually fairly astute and effective

Can't really comment on anyone other than the Augustan branch, which was half competent, half mental, all fun.

>[laughs in Sassanid]
Don't you mean:
>[laughs in Persian hysterically]

Why?

They never conquered the levant, anatolia and Egypt, not even from ERE

They were losers, i hate admitting this but its true

Shut up retard.

>Severus Alexander -- his mother ruled the empire, was totally incapable of preventing the crisis of the third century
The problem is that Alexander was to a fault deferential and bookish. This served him well when he had great advisors but not so well during war although he was doing what he could in a shit situation.

Gordian III's another underrated emperor IMO who had great people surrounding him. He may have gone on to do well as an adult but we'll never know since Priscus and Philip the Arab killed him and Timsethius who should be remembered as one of the greatest Praetorian Prefects in Roman history.

>Without waiting for the spring he decided to continue campaigning and moved from Savaria to Brigetio. Once he arrived on 17 November, he received a deputation from the Quadi. In return for supplying fresh recruits to the Roman army, the Quadi were to be allowed to leave in peace. However, before the envoys left they were granted an audience with Valentinian. The envoys insisted that the conflict was caused by the building of Roman forts in their lands; furthermore individual bands of Quadi were not necessarily bound to the rule of the chiefs who had made treaties with the Romans – and thus might attack the Romans at any time. The attitude of the envoys so enraged Valentinian that he suffered a burst blood vessel in the skull while angrily yelling at them, provoking his death[39] on November 17, 375.

Why so mad?

They had so much chance yet did nothing

Shut up retard.

>Best
>Trajan
>Hadrian

I will never understand how people will put the two on the same list when they were polar opposites of eachother. Hadrian basically undid everything Trajan did, minus Dacia.

Fantastic post
Anons like (you) make this board

>Best
Antoninus Pius - set aside thought of familial succession by adopting Marcus Aurelius, ensuring two generations of tranquility for the Empire
Julian the Apostate - Novelty; Managed to avoid getting killed despite living under tyrants and his brother sperging out, clearly blessed by some Gods; Devoted all his time to the Empire, only took breaks to enhance his mind and kill enemies of the Empire; Christians fear the Sol Invictus warrior-imperator, had to spear him to avoid having their meme sand faith toppled
Caligula - Archetype absolute madman, best to read about

>Worst
Marcus Aurelius - Was cucked, elevated his wife's lovers to positions of prominence instead of beating her like Cato (better Stoic) with his wife, daughter was also a hoe (probably didn't even fuck her), let his retard son co-rule at the age of 14 ensuring his succession, wrote shitty self help books
Caracalla - Extended citizenship to everyone within the Empire, devaluing it entirely because he wanted the love of the mob, also the least novel of the mad Emperors (Caligula > Nero > Commodus > Elagabalus > Augustus > Caracalla)
Honorius - Obvious reasons, succeeded through his family and not through merit and guile like his father, nail in the coffin for the West because of what a useless faggot he was, only saving grace was having a very large cock

Honourable mention:
Constantine XI - J U S T fuck my Basileía up, probably would have been a half decent Emperor maybe in different circumstances, died on his feet against T*rks

(dis)Honourable mention:
Maxentius - Rode the coat tails of his father Maximian, father conducted everything while he fucked about in Rome, thought he could compete with Constantine and was a whiny little shite about being left out of the loop of power after the Tetrarchy

Antoninus Pius didn't choose his successor. Hadrian did. Antoninus Pius was supposed to rule for a short time, while Marcus Aurelius was still too young to rule. Marcus Aurelius was Hadrian's "true" successor.

We don't know what was the true personality of Marcus Aurelius' wife. Romans always called their political opponents promiscuous and MA's wife did have political opponents.

Pius could've disregarded Hadrian's wishes if he wanted considering he had two grown sons already, he only adopted Marcus because of what Hadrian instructed, he didn't invest him. Disregarding an arse bandit emperor's amorous fancy of a young boy for your successor would've been easy enough I imagine.

Because the general autism is like power level faggotry only with Emperors: Trajan has conquests and nothing really else going for his legacy but lots of people like Hadrian due to him being a very effective administrator like Augustus and Tiberius.

why do you hate Theodosius so much?

Antoninus only had one living child. Who was also Marcus Aurelius' wife.

What did Irene do that was wrong, other than her personal life? She got the Byzantines back into communion with the Western church and managed to reconquer parts of Greece

Fucking Gibbon never mentioned they died, fat anglo fuck.

Nero saved Rome. He solved the inopia nummorum crisis for good. Since the late Republic Rome experienced severe deflationary spirals owning to its massive economic expansion (land = wealth to an agricultural economy like ancient rome) without growing monetary supply in step. These are similar to how the Long Depression impacted the late Industrial world. Great banking houses would experience bank runs, default on payments, and collapse taking down other great banking houses with them in a succession. Except now it was Mediterranean-wide: a failure of a noted name in Rome could bring down multiple banks in Egypt or Greece and trigger a liquidity crisis. This happened most notably in 33AD under Tiberius, though the financial situation was precarious throughout Caesar and Augustus' reigns. Citizens which had plenty of goods but no money filled the streets with cries of inopia nummorum (Cicero calls it nummorum caritas). Attempts to expand the monetary supply first by reintroducing bronze coinage and then by forcing senators to invest a portion of all their wealth into Italian land failed to resolve the problem, made it worse.

Nero solved the problem by dramatically expanding the civil service and pouring currency into the economy as a result of all his new bureaucrats running around in the shops spending his devalued currency. Nero would not have known this, but this is the first practical application of keynesianism in world history. Roman inflation rates would remain at a steady 1% per annum throughout the entirety of its golden age until successive civil wars forced mass devaluation of the denarius and triggered hyperinflation. Every leader that followed Nero up until the Crisis experienced prosperity beyond that which had known Rome for the entirety of its existence. All of that was made possible by Nero. Vespasian would steal his accomplishment but keep the majority of his bureaucratic reforms.

trajan was a boylover lol

>Best
Augustus
Julian the Apostate (If he wasn't killed in his Persian campaign he could have Made Rome Great Again)
Marcus Aurelius (except for that whole appointing his son as heir thing)

>Worst
Commodus (There's a reason the start of his reign is almost always considered the end of the Pax Romana)
Diocletian (Might have ended the Crisis of the Third Century, but his reforms of tying people to their hereditary careers and land pretty much directly led to multiple centuries of feudalist stagnation)
Maximinus Thrax (Kicked off the Crisis by setting the trend for barracks emperors)

Allowed the barbarians to cross into and settle in Roman territory without breaking up the tribes and forcing them to disarm for one. His desire to see a "united" empire means he dragged it into civil war multiple times leading to the death of one of the better (if dickish) officials of the day in Arbogast. Used the Goths as as cannon fodder at the Frigidus River, didn't properly reward them for winning his battle leaving them with a longstanding grudge against Rome. His "rule" over the empire lasted all of a few months before he died leaving the empire to his two useless sons Honorious and Arcadius. If it wasn't for Stillicho and Anthemius the Empire probably would've collapsed then and there.

Also he allowed himself to get outplayed by Ambrose after the Massacre of Thessalonica in what amounted to Henry and Gregory centuries earlier giving the church in the west unprecedented power that lasted for a millennia afterwards and defined the king as being subservient to the church instead of the other way around (or one in the same).

He's a genuinely awful ruler whose impact on the Empire is wholly negative.

>Julian the Apostate
>best anything
No.

Roman Republic is pretty boring senpai-a-lam-a-ding-dong. The period from the Crisis of the Third Century through the fall of the West is the most interesting period of Roman history.

>Best
>Julian the Apostate
>If he wasn't killed in his Persian campaign he could have Made Rome Great Again
I hope you are memeing, dude. Christianity was pretty firmly entrenched in the Roman Empire, especially in the Eastern half of it by this point. Him being a Neo-Platoist wasn't going to win him much support outside of his competence as a general and administrator at all here.

Can anyone post the essential books on Roman emperors and on the republic? I know almost nothing.

Aurelius
Constantine
Justinian

Nero
Caligula
Commodus

>Julian could have made rome great again
Thats true for every emperor. You cant judge a man over what he could have done, you can only judge him for what he did

I know this says top 3 but I think a top 5 is better
Best:
Augustus- obviously because of the founding of the principate and his sheer administrative and political genius. He made the Roman Empire the most powerful force on the planet.
Trajan- I know it's mainstream to have him on my list but his reign has to the most glorious after Augustus' reign. Great general, unfortunately most of his work was immediately undone by Hadrian
Aurelian- re united the empire after it had been split up and was the most successful general of the whole century. Allowed the empire to recover from the crisis of the third century.
Constantine- Political and military genius who's lasting impact is just too large to ignore. Founded Constantinople and of course helped the Roman people discover the one true God.
Theodosius- saved the empire from falling apart on numerous occasions and really layed the groundwork for the medieval ages.

Worst:
Commodus: I actually don't think he's as bad as some make him out to be, but his reign almost singlehandedly caused the crisis of the third century.
Phillip the Arab- killed the legitimate emperor Gordian and completely destabilized the empire. The crisis may have not happened if not for Phillip.
Julian- I don't know why he was such a contrarian but he tried to retake the empire from the Christians which never could be done. Also charging into battle without his armour is pretty stupid.
Honorius- completely useless and spineless emperor who did nothing to stop mass invasion and the sack of Rome.
Petronius Maximus- in his whole 2 month reign his only accomplishment was enticing the Vandals to sack Rome.

>Aurelius
>Good

>Caligula
>Nero
>Commodus
Pseuds.

That's a very childish approach to history; historical personas weren't some meme chosen ones and more often than not they got fucked over by pure (shit) luck and factors out of their control.

>>Worst
>Marcus Aurelius

Maxentius is a bit unfair. He should've been a Tetrarch from the beginning but Galerius froze him out and did everything he could to keep his buddies and yes-men in power virtually ensuring bruised egos and civil wars. Galerius was an absolute disaster of a man.

Honestly my biggest knock on Nero was his treatment of Claudia Octavia. Sweet girl, beloved by the populace but he treated her cruelly and eventually killed her because FUCK YOU MOM, I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME.

>Best
1.Trajan
2.Hadrian
3.Augustus

>Worst
1.Constantine
2.Nero
3.Domitcian

Why does Trajan look like so Polish?

So, I'm fairly sure that Nero didn't actually burn Rome (or that at least it was doubtful), but does anyone have any reputable sources? Need to convince some people of this.

Well yes, if like to see the world burn

>Trajan

Massively overrated

>Hurr durr look at me I'm Alexander

>Nero didn't actually burn Rome
He didn't. The Jews did.

There are several primary sources, but Tacitus is probably the least partisan
>mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Tacitus/TacitusAnnals15.html
in verse 39, Tacitus tells us that Nero was in Antium when the fire occurred, but later on, in verse 44, he says this:

>But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

As far as Tacitus was concerned, Nero probably had nothing to do with the fire and scapegoated Christians in order to cover his ass. The fact that he was building his colossal, opulent Domus Aurea over what was once the most valuable real estate in the Empire probably wasn't helping his case

>worst
>Diocletian

People always hate genius.

Good/bad dichotomy is meh

Oh my God

>Best
Augustus
Trajan
Basil II

>Worst
Commodus
Valens
Honorius