List of 10 Worst Emperors of the Roman Empire

[Vladislav]

Being bored with my major and direction of my schoolwork this past year, I've taken up to reading a lot of ancient history on my spare time to satisfy my pursuit of knowledge or however you may call it. I wouldn't call my knowledge of the Roman civilization great by any means, but I do have several books on them that I've read (including the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire which primarily motivated me to make this list) so I've compiled a list of what in my opinion are the worst people to have ever called themselves Emperor of Rome.

 

I have the list on youtube here:

It includes some brief notes on reasons why I placed them in that order (which was kind of hard to do because half of what I read is exaggerated or I couldn't find sufficient proof to mention it) but if you don't want to sit through the whole clip the order is basically:

10. Arcadius

9. Thrax

8. Valentinian III

7. Domitian

6. Caracalla

5. Honorius

4. Nero

3. Commodus

2. Elagabalus

1. Caligula

 

I have my own opinions and criteria that influenced the order of this list but it would be neat to hear other peoples opinions and of course I want to make sure I got my information right!

 

-V

[Caius Maxentius]

Maybe Valens, whose dealings with the Goths left much to be desired?

[NoJobRob]

Pretty cool. I like the music too.

[Axel Wers]

10. Arcadius

9. Thrax

8. Valentinian III

7. Domitian

6. Caracalla

5. Honorius

4. Nero

3. Commodus

2. Elagabalus

1. Caligula

 

Generally I can agree with this list. Maybe Valerianus would be better choice instead of Arcadius, because his failed military campaign against Persians was not only the worst defeat during 3rd century crisis, but the biggest shame for empire too.

[caldrail]

Maybe Valens, whose dealings with the Goths left much to be desired?

Really? That's an aodd choice. Valens comes across as a rather better ruler than some. He won victories against the Goths, settled the differences, cobverted them to Arianism, and permitted them to asylum in Thrace when the Huns caused upheavals in gothic territory. He chose the right commander for his legions (but never did solve the issue of court intrigue surrounding that choice, which led to problems and a disastrous big battle). The treatment handed out to gothic immigrants that inspired the rebellion was down to the machniations of the local thracian governors, Lupercinus and Maximus. As for Adrianople, Valens attempted to negotiate another peace settlement but the late and chaotic arrival of Roman forces caused the goths to believe the battle had started. So it did.

[Axel Wers]

In my opinion Battle of Adrianople was tactical failure for two reasons:
 

1. Legionaries were tired after long march
2. Romans underestimated Goths

[Onasander]

In either case 1 or 2, is that a tactical mistake. It's a failure in strategy, in case one simple operations and logistics. In case two, intelligence, planning, and battle field coordination capable of respinding to novel tactics.

 

 

Goths won by tactics. Romans lost because they lacked everything else.