Top 3 Roman Emperors:

>Trajan first
>Vespasian top 3
>Constantine bottom 3
>Domitian worst

You are just wrong, OP.

I can get behind this list thougj Caracalla did more actual harm to the Empire than Elagabalus, and Elagabalus' biggest sin outside of drastic religious reforms was bad PR.

>God only knows what he would have done next, fuck the Praetorian Guard.
why did they assassinate him? he didn't pay them enough?

It was retarded. They “found” a random letter that said Aurelian was gonna execute them, so they immediate ran and stabbed him to death in his tent. Turns out the letter was false, and so they said “oh shit” and shrugged.

Praetorian
Fucking
Shits

Rome was always at its worst with emperors lording over the men of the republic, I say every one of them is a tragedy for Rome.

The best emperor was the last emperor, but they had by then run their course, and Rome was dust.

Best:
1 - Augustus
2 - Julian
3 - Marcus
Special Mention - Aurelian

Worst:
1 - Constantine
2 - Commodous
3 - Caligula
Special Mention - Caracalla

>dude what if we named everyone in the Empire Marcus Aurelius
fucking Caracalla

Look, I am as big of Apostataboo as they come but he is not second best Emperor. He's not even top 5.

Best 3:
-Augustus
-Antoninus Pius
-Constantine
Honourable mentions:
-Aurelian
-Marcus Aurelius

Worst 3:
-Petronius Maximus
-Valentinian III
-Honorius
Dishonourable mentions:
-Commodus
-Elagabalus
-Julian

Best 3 Byzantine:
-Basil II
-John II Komnenos
-Justinian
Honourable mentions:
-Basil I
-Alexios Komnenos
-John III Vatatzes

Worst 3 Byzantine:
-Phocas
-Andronikos Komnenos
-Alexios III Angelos
Dishonourable mentions:
-Justin II
-Nicephoros
-Andronikos II Palaiologos

>Julian at number 2

I personally factor in intent and character.
When you consider those factors, I would consider him almost equal to Augustus.
Hell, it is the same reason I have Marcus as third.

Galileans get out.

Why is Antoninus Pius number 2? He seemed to just maintain status quo, not a bad thing by any means. I just can’t see how he compares to Aurelian or Diocletian

You don't need to be a Christian to know that Julian was a bad emperor

Are the people listing Constantine as one of the worst emperors just butthurt about the death of pagan Rome ?

Because his reign was the most peaceful, stable, and prosperous in the Empire's history. Aurelian is great and I would put in my top 5 but his economic policy is an unfortunate black mark on his reign. And I don't think Diocletian was *that* great of an emperor.

people don't find Justinian to be overrated? it seems like he got by mostly due to the byzantine dream team (Theodora, Belisarius, Tribonian, John the Cappadocian), while draining the treasury with his wars in Italy against the Ostrogoths (who were doing perfectly fine without byzantine inference and ended up devastating the region).

Julian was objectively not a bad Emperor unless you're a Christian.

Mostly that but also he completely destroyed any potential for the tetrarchy to possibly succeed.

There's not a single Emperor other than Domitian that had a good economic policy. They successful emperors got by when the economy was alright or by plundering. Rome never understood basic economic concepts we have today like inflation.

>Julian was objectively not a bad Emperor unless you're a Christian.
But he so was:
-Turning the empire Pagan was an unattainable goal
-Went to war with Persia for no reason with no clear objective and died there plunging the empire into a succession crisis which lead to the shitty dynasties that succeeded him

Yeah he was pretty bad, and someone who forgets to put their armour on during battle really shouldn't be emperor

JUSTinian’s ability to gather such a think tank around him is a testament to his ability as a leader, much like how Augustus had Agrippa and Macenas. He used to be disliked, but in recent years he’s had a more positive attitude towards him. Largely his failures are due to the plague (which was functionally as demographic shattering as the Black Death) and climactic chaos (partially due to volcanic eruptions). He had some flaws when it came to his treatment of Belisarius, but still, fate decided to take a huge dump on JUSTinian

I do agree that Justinian is overrated, but being overrated doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't good. Recoquering the western provinces was a noble goal and was big economic boom for the Empire and his architectural achievements are great.

Don’t forget the establishment of the most important and longest lasting legal code in European history.

>Constantine in people’s worst lists
>Fucking Julian in people’s best lists
This is best, here, not favorites. You cannot be this biased unironically

>Rome never understood basic economic concepts we have today like inflation
this isn't entirely fair, the Romans certainly knew about inflation, they just didn't know how to combat it effectively. Constantine's solidus (and likely Diocletian's solidus too, though he missed the mark and his version wasn't widely used) was coined specifically to fight the inflation that plagued the Roman Empire during the Crisis of the 3rd Century.

Negative. Diocletians economic reforms were targeting coin debasement, not inflation. There is a difference and the economy never covered because the difference was not understood by Romans.

If you want to be as generous as possible with the dates, if we're counting from Milvian to Julian's ascension, it had been less than 50 years the Empire was "Christian" and undoing it would not be insurmountable. A better argument would be attacking some of methods for attempting this reversion.

As for his war with Persia, hindsight is 20/20 and his immediate predecessors that survived the gauntlet of ambitious advisors and the fucking praetorians did so from a sterling military record. Julian arguably got where he was from his successful Germanic wars.

By the time of Constantine, Christianity had already become popular in the aristocracy and especially in the East, aka the relevant parts of the Empire. Theodosius wasn’t like flipping a light switch on.
Julian’s endeavor was an uphill battle against a very clear trend, and if it wasn’t Christianity, it wouldn’t have been Platonic Hellenism as he wanted.

Foreign mystery cults had been growing since Christ was in diapers

>Christianity was popular in the aristocracy by the time of Constantine

Yeah because he was actively encouraging and favor people who were Christian, not because of some deep-seeded affinity for Christianity among Roman nobles.

Julian could've, and did begin to, undo Christianity's favor in his entourage through the exact same means. There is absolutely no reason to believe Christianity was rooted too well in the Empire at that point any more than the traditional latin pantheon eventually was carried out of popularity by Sol Invictus.

>if we're counting from Milvian to Julian's ascension
But we shouldn't, Hellenism was already dead at that point, still only practiced because it was tradition. Christianity had been steadily growing in popularity throughout the empire's history and its believers were *much* more devout than pagans

And sure Julian had some succes in the west but his war with Persia was completely pointless and the following dynasties coming to power did so *directly* as a result of Julian's incompetence on that front

Those Christians Constantine patronized weren’t exactly poor street urchins that he raised based on their faith. Christianity was the largest growing religion in the empire. People wanted to be Christians, and you can’t change that through lobbying. Paganism was waning in the east, and Constantine wasn’t as influential as medieval morality plays would have you believe. He was most likely influenced by the times rather than the other way around.

As for Julian’s military prowess, that’s greatly over exaggerated. He had success in Germany, but he wasn’t exactly hammer of the Germans. He had to be rescued once by Marcellus, not to mention he only became sole Augustus because his chief rival, one who had his rebellion dead to rights, Constantius died prematurely.

Julian’s death in Persia was totally in line with his military record

We have no realistic idea of how much Christianity had spread to the regulars. What we know about Christianity is the harshness or leniancy is was dealt from a top down approach, and the little bit of archaeological evidence available. So calling it the largest growing religion in the Empire largely seems unsupported. Likewise, the East was always pretty separated from the rest of the empire culturally and religiously ao it's a farcry to say they were heralding a big empire-wide change. Lastly, it is an unsupported statement to aay Constantine was just going with the times. In all likelihood the Chi Rho story was employed as an intentionally ambiguous symbol so that different peoples would get what they want out of it; however, there is not evidence to conclude Constantine issues the Edict of Milan riding a populist Christian wave.

In regards to Julian's military prowess, you downplay him to a fault. He was set up to fail in his campaigns multiple times and still succeeded. It's false to say he became default Augustus because his popularity among his men was what created his grassroots support for his propulsion into Augustus. Furthermore, his Persian campaign was pretty successful up until Procopius failed to arrive. Socrates Scholasticus even states that his victory outside of Ctesiphon had been so complete that Shapur offered him lands in exchange for lifting the siege. He is no Agrippa but you do yourself a discredit to imply his military prowess was a weakness and a blemish.

In terms of intent and character, he was one of the best - Possibly the best.
Like a divine hero he rose from relative obscurity to emperor, with the mission of saving the empire at its 11th hour.

While he may not have succeeded, humans do tend to celebrate a brave, hopeless battle fought to the last.
Julian's quest to save the empire was this Thermopylae and the filthy Galileans his Persians.

While Constantine did not personally deliver the killing blow to the empire (that 'honour' belongs to a Persian cavalry man).
He did do more lasting damage to it then any other emperor.

>Turning the empire Pagan was an unattainable goal
Wrong the majority of the empire (especially in the west) would not become Galileans for centuries.
By the time of Julian, Galileanism was still mostly limited to aristocratic families and ambitious government bureaucrats.
Ha Julian been able to best the Persians, he would had had the political capital necessary to force such filth out of the imperial administrative system.
He also would have had the monetary capital to bank roll the reformation of the Hellenistic faith.

Ok I see, you're one of the people who only likes Julian because he wasn't Christian. I'm sure if he was, you wouldn't give a damn about his intents or ambitions and would treat his military disasters as proof that Christianity was bad for the empire as you appear to be doing with Constantine. Almost everything in your entire post is factually incorrect so I think you're just shitposting anyway.

When I say East, I mean the eastern half of the empire that became the center of political power in the 4th century, and had been trending that way since at least Hadrian. Italy at that point was a vestige of imperial power, and in Italy, traditional pagan rites had the sway.

I’m not talking about Syria Palestine.

As for his military career, I may have downplayed it too much, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was still lackluster, even in his German career. As for writing off losses on Lowe ranking commanders, that’s part of it. A king is at fault for his general’s error, because it’s ultimately his loss.

And yeah, there is some random chance here and there that can ruin a good career, but, again, that’s part of it.

Alexander the Great isn’t that Great if he gets an arrow through the brain in Sparta, despite whatever promise he had

On the off chance you’re serious, you’re only damaging your position by being such a meme. Take a lesson from the other guy

Listen here you piece of shit

This is the official list

Justinian's treatment of Bellisarius is even justifiable considering the dude did accept to become emperor. Even if it was just a deception, you can't do that and think the real emperor wouldn't get suspicious.

Leave elagabalus alone he did nothing wrong

Best
Alexios I Komnenos
Basil II
Augustus

WORST
Phocas
Justinian
One of the shitty usurpers, idk

What do you have against Domitian, are you some sort of senateboo?

Best

1. THE REPVBLIC

Worst

2. All of them

best
cesar
cesar
cesar

>"ayo lets do absolutely nothing about all these small problems so that my succesor will have to deal with them once thwy become huge problems"

Absolutely nothing happened during the reign of Antoninus Pius, everything came crumbling down on Marcus Aurelius's head once he assumed

Best
1) Augustus
2) Hadrian
3) Marcus Aurelius

Worst
1) Caracalla
2) Elagabalus
3) Caligula

Personal Fave's
1) Aurelian
2) Julian the Apostate

worst
cesar
cesar
cesar

As for the Eastern Empire:

Best:
1) Anastasius I. This guy does not get anywhere near enough praise. He was quite literally the best ruler the Roman Empire had from the time of Constantine all the way to John I Tzimiskes.
2) Basil II
3) John II Komnenos

Worst:
1) Phocas
2) Justinian II
3) The entire Angelos dynasty

>Phocas
This piece of shit doesn't get nearly as much hate as he deserves

This is the only real answer. The Roman Empire was never a stable state, but the prolonged death of a good but flawed State

>no Aurelian

I disagree with your assessment of Christianity's hold in "The East". If we go back just a bit further to even Aurelian's time, Christianity was a footnote in the Palmyrene Empire outside of Egypt and Palestine. Sol Invictus was the predominant religion there. In Anatolia or past the Palmyrene borders in Greece I have not seen evidence to indicate that Christianity was exploding in popularity at a grassroots level in late 3rd and early 4th century. So if my perception is accurate then I will assert that Christian roots by the time of Julian had not run very deep in the heart of the empire and that simply "un-indoctrinating" the Christian preferences in the cursus honoram and advisory roles would have been enough to stem the Christian tide. Then goimg further and creating policies that favored paganism would, over a long reign, be enough to unseat Christianity's sway. A clever policitian could even play to the Roman tendency to look favorably on the past for pagan revitalization.

I am also not saying he's blameless in his demise. Not burning his ships would've gone a long way as would have taking Shapur's offer. However, it's not as though he made a tactical blunder that insight could have prevented. A series of unfortunate circumstances occurred, starting with the flooding of the canal from the Tigris, and his stop-gap didn't pan out. I don't know what your basis of comparison is for lackluster, but he was HIGHLY respected among his peers, the likes of which include Valentinian, for his martial abilities. Like I said, not top of all Roman generals but he was at the very least above average for his time.

Id say his problem was that he tried to replicate Alexander the Great but without the luck and nowhere near the skill (but he was a solid general. Just not along the likes of Belisarius or Heraclius, he couldn’t handle the Persian menace) and Shapur was a far more confident and talented commander than Darius III was

Anastasius is the main reason Justinian's renaissance was at all possible.

Valentinian is my favourite just for how silly his death was

FEE FI FO FUM

I SMELL THE BLOOD OF A QUADIAN MAN

BE HE LIVE OR BE HE DEAD

I'LL YELL TILL IT EXPLODES MY HEAD

100% agreed.

I second your opinion, glad someone else said it before me though. I really like Domitian.

>Not
FEE FI FO FUM
I SMELL THE BLOOD OF QUADI SCUM