Rome's Worst Emperors

[Yehudah]

All of our surviving sources on the Roman emperors (e.g. Tacitus, Suetonius) would have had their own agendas when writing the histories of their times. Thus many Roman emperors have undoubtedly been unfairly glorified or demonized.

 

That said - from what we know about them - who were some of Rome's worst emperors? By "worst" I mean negative traits such as cruel, pleasure-seeking, lazy, etc.

 

Some men that come to mind immediately:

 

Caligula

Nero

Domitian

Commodus

Elagabalus

 

In this thread, name some of Rome's more scandalous or bloodthirsty emperors, and feel free to share any contemporary accounts of their antics.

[GhostOfClayton]

Romulus Augustulus was barely out of nappies! Does that count as a negative trait?

[Northern Neil]

Honorius, for me, has got to be the worst. A petulant, inneffective pipsqueak who had Stilicho murdered and didn't care a fig for Rome as long as he was safe in Ravenna feeding his pet chickens. If someone different had been emperor, a character resembling Valentinian I for instance, The Empire could well have extricated itself from the mess it was getting into in the early 5th century. His dad Theodosius 'The Great' was only slightly better.

[Yehudah]

^^

Honorius is said to have had an incestuous affair with his sister

[GhostOfClayton]

It'd be quicker to list the ones that didn't have incestuous affairs.

[Ursus]

Yeah. I think it might be easier to list the "good ones" as opposed to listing the "bad ones."

 

But as far as the "worst," Commodus and Elagabalus certainly rank up there as being totally worthless.

[Caius Maxentius]

How about Gallienus? The crisis of the third century seemed to reach a fracturous climax during his reign.

 

Valentinian III seemed to be cut from the same cloth as Honorius, I'd include him, too.

[Lanista]

Domitian wasn't that bad. Well until the end, but at least he got stuff done. Army liked him too.

[caldrail]

Didius Julianus. If ever a man was promoted beyond his ability, it was him. And he had to pay the praetorians for the privilege of being ignored by the Senate and abandoned by slaves and family. I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[DecimusCaesar]

Caracalla could be a good candidate considering he was tyrannical and vicious, but I doubt he was one of the worst (compared with Commodus, Nero and Caligula).

 

Petronius Maximus was a very weak and ineffectual ruler who ended up getting killed and mutilated by the Roman mob as he tried to flee the city after the Vandals attacked in AD 455. He ruled for just two months.

[Yehudah]

Some of these emperors get a bad rap. Gallienus did what he could with what he was given; Caracalla's only flaw was his bloodthirstiness - he was a competent military man and a talented administrator.

[Lucius Domitius Amelianus]

Commodus is the one I would consider the topmost of "Rome's Worst Emperors". As it's been remarked and noted from so many sources and commentaries...he truly was one of the most useless, unhinged, and inept figures that held the title "Emperor".

 

Despite being given the best in education, management, and leadership through some of the best tutors and educators of the Second Century, his utter lack of intelligibility and depraved personal ambitions (such as renaming Rome and the title of Roman citizens after himself, emulating himself as a living embodiment of "Hercules", unbound spending of the Roman treasury, and so many others)seems so incredulous and ridiculous of a reality to follow after such a figure in that of his father, Marcus Aurelius. It's something astounding that the fabric of the Roman Empire, already plagued with numerous internal and external complications of governance, was able to keep relatively grounded after dealing with Commodus for thirteen years.

 

I would also put into the same category of "Worst Roman Emperors" that of the puppet emperors placed into power under Richimer (Libius Severus and Olybrius to be exact). Clearly tools of the political power-play of Richimer, they just seemed to "fill in the empty space" of Emperor in the same say way as someone who merely fills in seats at performances.

[Northern Neil]

Commodus is the one I would consider the topmost of "Rome's Worst Emperors". As it's been remarked and noted from so many sources and commentaries...he truly was one of the most useless, unhinged, and inept figures that held the title "Emperor".

Commodus certainly spoilt the sequence of good, adoptive emperors. One wonders whether the film 'Gladiator' had a point when it suggested that Marcus Aurelius was not the successor of choice for Marcus Aurelius.

[Centurion-Macro]

While he ruled for only a short time (thank the Gods) I believe that Vitellius should be added to the list of bad emperors. He was lazy, arrogant, self indulgent and completely useless. He ruled because he thought a "prophecy" said he should rule, and didn't really care about the people, just as long as they kept in line and kept giving him food.

[GhostOfClayton]

[Commodus certainly spoilt the sequence of good, adoptive emperors. One wonders whether the film 'Gladiator' had a point when it suggested that Marcus Aurelius was not the successor of choice for Marcus Aurelius.

 

An excellent film on BBC2 yesterday (sorry I didn't post it on the 'Coming up next' thread, but it was too late by the time I found out about it) called The Fall of the Roman Empire. This had passed me by so far, but it dealt with the latter part of Marcus Aurelius' life and the acsession of Commodus (much like the film 'Galdiator'). One interesting subplot was that Commodus was not, in fact, the son of Marcus Aurelius, but of his trainer, Verulus (seems to be a fictional character). However, this subplot was based on the rumours that Commodus was actually the bastard son of a gladiator who had been the lover of Marcus Aurelius's wife Faustina.