Emperor Goblinus Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 We have a thread on the best Roman, now who do you think was the worst? For me, it would be a toss between Honorius and Nero. Honorius because of his disastrous policies that ultimately doomed the western empire, and Nero is pretty obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 (edited) I would have to agree on Honorius aswell. Goblinus does this also include Eastern emperors and Byzantine ones? if so i would say Andronikos Commenus or Alexius Angelus for enticing the Crusaders to come to Cosntantinople and place him upon the throne. Im sure there are worse emperors but i cant think of right now. Edited April 7, 2006 by Honorius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Goblinus Posted April 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Yes, this can include the Byzantines. Another bad one might be Romaus Diogenes for building up the biggest army that money could buy, then having it wiped out at Manzikert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 (edited) I was thinking of Romanus Diogenes but remembered that it was personally not at his fault for the final defeat at Manzikert. But what about Basiliscus.. if i remember he sent that ill fated expeditionary force to north africa where it was wiped out by the Vandals. Or was it Zeno? Edited April 7, 2006 by Honorius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Goblinus Posted April 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 I believe it was Zeno, but I'm not too sure. Also, Majorian failed to take back North Africa, but he was pretty effective for a western emperor of that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Emperor Valens, his disastrous decisions doomed the empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Theodosius. He destroyed classical culture and set in motion the destruction of the Western empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 Just to widen the search, how about throwing the Fair Sex into the mix? Theodora any help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullafelix Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Just to widen the search, how about throwing the Fair Sex into the mix? Theodora any help? Flamin trollop! How about Commodus!!?? Not a very nice man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Emperor Valens, his disastrous decisions doomed the empire. How exactly? Last I checked he fixed the economy, removed a lot of corruption in the admistration of the Eastern Empire, set the stage for a strong East in the future and established husbandry farms for the cavalry of the Eastern Empire. So how can he be the one who doomed Rome when his Eastern Empire did not fall until 1453?? Just to widen the search, how about throwing the Fair Sex into the mix? Theodora any help? She is regarded as a saint by some and, she was just what Justinian needed... she was strong, steadfast and pushed for more rights for women in the East and admisitered a lot of the bueracracy in Constantinople... she's seen as such a horrid person because of Procopius' "The Secret History", and I find it very entertaining to read but I question how truthful it was, especially how before Procopius did nothing but rain praise and honor on Justinian and Theodora... Theodosius. He destroyed classical culture and set in motion the destruction of the Western empire. Well I will say I think it was foolish of him to think that it was a wise decision to leave the Empires to his sons under the guardianship of, (while very capable men), men who hated each other and were quickly at each other's throats... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 I'm going to say the Roman nobles of the early Republic (can't remember their names right now) who bungled the diplomatic talks between the Celts and Etruscans, and ultimately resulted in the Celts sacking Rome. It set Rome back at least 50 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 I'm going to say the Roman nobles of the early Republic (can't remember their names right now) who bungled the diplomatic talks between the Celts and Etruscans, and ultimately resulted in the Celts sacking Rome. It set Rome back at least 50 years. Would you please give a little more information on this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Would you please give a little more information on this matter. http://www.unrv.com/empire/gallic-sack-of-rome.php Livy goes into more detail (Livy loves detail, it seems). Fabius, the leader of three Roman envoys sent to negotiate with the Gauls over excursions into Etruria, violated what passed for "international law" at the time and incited violence at a diplomatic meeting. Incensed, the Gauls stormed to Rome and demanded that Fabius be handed over for his crimes. It was a reasonable request. Unfortunately the Romans refused to admit they were in the wrong, and did not hand over Fabius. The result was the infamous sacking of Rome. Rome's subjects took the opportunity to break away, and it was fifty years before order was restored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilcar Barca Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Worst personality award: Nero/Caligula Worst influence award: Honorius (Reasons already stated, I pretty much agree) So how can he be the one who doomed Rome when his Eastern Empire did not fall until 1453?? He doomed the other half though. Valens reckless failure in diplomacy and battle with the goths sent the Western Roman empire down the path to hell. While I don't believe he was the worst Roman figure, I don't think he deserves to be so spiritly defended from accusations that he did mess up big time, despite some noteworthy achievements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 (edited) So how can he be the one who doomed Rome when his Eastern Empire did not fall until 1453?? He doomed the other half though. Valens reckless failure in diplomacy and battle with the goths sent the Western Roman empire down the path to hell. While I don't believe he was the worst Roman figure, I don't think he deserves to be so spiritly defended from accusations that he did mess up big time, despite some noteworthy achievements. His actions at Adrianople, (while detrimental), does not explain why the Western Roman Empire fell. No one has yet to give evidence why Valens actions doomed the West... I am waiting. The Western Half was always the strongest militaryily, it was not until 394AD that the Western Army had any setback and this was because Theodosius destroyed a very large portion of the that army as he defeated his rivals in the West, uniting the Empire. Upon his death then, most of the Eastern Army, (since it had been partially rebuilt and 1/4 of it; around 16,000, which was not in the East during Adrianople but instead in the West due to orders from Valentinian to his brother in 370; had returned to the East), was with the Western Army under Stilicho until Stilicho was finally forced into returning the forces that had gone West and stayed there by Arcadius. At this junction, the West was a strong force to be reckoned with; however, due to intrigues and hostility of both of halves of the empire with each other, (they were on the brink of war), and then the death of the military steward of the West, (Stilicho), who had defeated Alaric several times but was unable to completely destroy them; due because when he was going to deliver that final blow Rufinus, steward over Arcadius in the East signed a treaty with Alaric thus forcing Stilicho to cease his actions and then ordered Stilicho to leave Eastern lands immediatily. So I ask to anyone to please supply me with information as to why Valens, (whether to be regarded as the worst Roman figure or not), was the reason the West was doomed... unless the information I have presented can be disputed and found to be void... then Valens cannot be the one responsible... Furthermore, my repeated defense of Valens on this board has more to do with his image as the scapegoat of the Late Roman Empire... that everything was "Hunky-Dory" until he came along and then he f***** it all up... My fervor comes from trying to be historically correct in giving blame to those who rightly deserve and to defend those who have been falsely accused... and being accused of creating the downfall of the Roman Empire is a very large crime... simply stating him as the cause gives a "Get out of Jail Free Card" to men like Gratian, Honorius, Arcadius, Theodosius, Stilicho, Valentinian III, Rufinus, Gainas, etc and that is something I cannot just let happen. P.S. Nothing personal Hamilcar, I'm just frustrated is all... please do not take my response as an attack on you... it was in no way meant to be against anyone in particular... Edited April 14, 2006 by Neos Dionysos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.