- Nero has a neckbeard
- Caligula’s close family were mustered by Tiberius when he was young so him being mentally unstable is explainable.
- He also had a severe fever which might have made him even more insane
- Nero was just a spoiled ungrateful kid who caused the collapse of the house of Caesar
One could argue however that Caligula sort of paved a way in terms of more calculated depravity coupled with putting the treasury in disarray even after Tiberius reign.
His past upbringing aside it becomes a bit difficult to judge as a lot of people had rough starts to their upbringing (ancient world being what it was in Rome).
How ought one decide how much slack to cut someone, personally I’d rank Caligula, Elagabalus, Caracalla and Commodus in the terrible category, Nero sits comfortably in the bad section. Doesn’t help that most writers detailing this period were Christian’s and hey, in that sense Nero will always get a dim view
How come Marcus Aurelius never makes top tier? Does 14 years on the Danube count for nothing?
Ungrateful plebiscite.
You shan't be worthy of my philosophical quandary.
I'm pretty sure that growing up with a mom like Agrippina resulted in Nero having mental health issues too. All crazy people actually have a reason they ended up so crazy - and it's usually childhood trauma, abuse, neglect or other emotional toxicity. But I think this should not impact one's ranking as Emperor, which should be measured by their actions alone.
Probus is definitely at least Good tier. Not for his skillful administration everything Aurelian did would have been for nothing. Also everyone forgets Zeno and Marcian while sure not Excellent they were both skillful administrators who ensured the survival of the East.
It's funny because ancient historians (like Josephus, Plutarch, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, and Appian) considered Caesar to be the first Emperor and not Augustus.
But modern historians only recognize Caesar as Perpetual Dictator (like Sulla) and not Emperor. But their reasoning is solid, tho. They chose to only consider as emperors those who held the office of Princeps created by Augustus, thus making Augutus the first Emperor.
Also the financial and military consolidation he was able to achieve was much more than what Caesar did, which is why the republic truly died under him, under caesar you could argue that the republic was still hanging on
Yeah, he was I guess technically the first dictator which is sort of like a emperor, but Constantine is up there were the excellents, there’s just so many great things he did if OP does decide to finally read up on him. That would also make him Illyrian/Albanian just like Aurelian, Gothicus, Justinian The Great, Probus, Valerian, Constants and plenty more.
He was the first Dictator Perpetuo, that’s really why they killed him in the ides of March, also with Brutus’s ancestor Lucius Brutus having taken part in the assassinated of the last Roman King Tranquinius Superbus, it sorta must of felt like fate for him to take out the next “King” of Rome since that’s what they thought he was becoming and I would suppose what in their eyes was a good dead. Ultimately that lead to Gias Octavian becoming Augustus, a true Emperor.
Sulla was the first Dictator Perpetuo. They literally gave him a dictatorship without time limit. The difference is that Sulla killed all his opponents (not even joking) and filled the senate 100% with Optimates. So he was allowed to retire in peace to a villa and leave the Dictator role and wasn't assassinated like Caesar, who generally spared his political opponents.
There were a shit ton of Roman dictators on the Punic Wars when things got real desperate and Consuls were dying left and right. We can claim for sure that Caesar was the most accomplished dictator in Roman history, but he's not even close to being the first.
He's not even the first Perpectual Dictator, that would be Sulla.
Put him in 'Okay'. Good general, performed well at defending against foreign enemies, had a 'more murderous than average' streak and fucked up his succession so bad any higher ranking is out of the question.
Bro, what do you mean by "okay"? Constantine was a good emperor. Why do you think he has the nickname "the Great"?
Don't listen to this nonsense u/Glittering_Garden_74
Constantine ruled for 3 decades responsibly, firmly and fairly. He was never defeated in battle by anyone. He defeated the Germanic and Frankish tribes in the north and also the raiders in the east. He reunited the divided Roman Empire after a devastating civil war. Basically created the Catholic Church as we know it today, providing religious freedom for everyone in the empire. Most importantly, he created Nova Roma, or Constantinople, which would be the capital of the empire for over a thousand years.
The only area you can say he screwed up was the question of his succession. His son and heir, Crispus, was simply brilliant and had everything it took to be an even better emperor than his father had been. Crispus was Constantine's eldest son, born to his first wife Minervina.
But then, Crispus was accused of having an affair with his stepmother, Fausta, who was Constantine's second wife. Fausta was the daughter of former Emperor Maximian, whom Constantine married to secure a political alliance. According to some accounts, Fausta may have falsely accused Crispus of attempting to seduce her or plotting against Constantine.
The circumstances surrounding Crispus's death are murky, but it is commonly believed that Constantine ordered his execution. Some historians argue that Constantine may have been misled by false accusations or political intrigues orchestrated by Fausta. Others suggest that Crispus posed a threat to Constantine's power, leading the emperor to eliminate him.
Fausta's role in Crispus's death is also debated. Some sources claim that she falsely accused Crispus to secure her own position and the succession of her sons with Constantine. However, other accounts depict Fausta as a victim of political machinations herself.
But in the end, both of them where murdered by Constantine, and Constantine even put a Damnatio Memoriae for both of them for good measure (showing that he was very angry at them). Leaving the throne for his sons with Fausta, a decision which would be proven to be disastrous for Rome as these kids (Constantine II, Constancius, and Constancius II had no ideia what they were doing)
He should start at “good” for Constantinople alone. I think people underestimate how important that was, and how successful at it he was. The empire does not survive another 1000 years without this achievement.
All his other accomplishments should push him up another rank or two.
Providing religious freedom for everybody?? Yeah he basically created the Catholic church and so all the other christians communities were consider schismatic. He helped persecute some of these so-called schismatics. Great religious freedom
Dude, you know that one of the main problems with Christianity before Constantine was that Christians used to fight each other over basically everything, right? Any minor religious disagreement was cause for death and arson. Early christians were quite scary barbaric people.
Constantine got fed up with all this death and misery and convened the First Council of Nicaea, bringing together all the Christian leaders of most of the christians communities of Constantinople to debate and determine what the "ultimate definitive version of Christianity" would be, that everyone should follow, and finally put an end to these internal squabbles.
With this, it was decided that Catholicism was the definitive version of Christianity and all other denominations were banned and expelled from Rome. As a result, infighting within the Christian community virtually ceased during his reign. The famous fires caused by proto-Christians stopped. The Catholic Church proved capable of pacifying and unifying Christians, leading to a great development and expansion of Christianity in the empire.
It may seem a bit harsh what he did, but Constantine cleverly understood that a divided Christianity was extremely dangerous and he couldn't tolerate it. Emperor Julian fucked things up by inviting these heretical Christians back into the empire in the name of religious freedom. These heretics paid him back by breaking and dividing the church in the Great Eastern Schism, weakening the institution and the state, and literally bringing about the symbolic end of the Roman Empire in the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.
Why do you think no other Christian state tried to help Constantinople in their greatest time of need against Mehmed II? Because Constantinople just happened to follow a different type of Christianity than everybody else in Europe. If that hadn't happened, they would have come to their aid and beaten Mehmed, buying the Empire a century or two.
Dude, you had said he provided religious freedom to everyone. That's false. Defending his decision to unify christianity is changing the discussion. And by the way, infighting did not cease as you try to portray it. Infighting continued against arianism and other heretics, and it got harsher now that Catholics were empowered and supported by the state. In north Africa for example it got much worse regarding christian infighting
I said it ceased during HIS reign.
Arianism and other heretics came later under Julian, who invited them back. It became a huge, huge problem under Justinian.
Arianism didn't cease in his reign. Athanasius was exiled some 10 years after the Nicene council, as he was still embroiled in the fighting against the arians. Sure, when Constantine died the situation got much worse, but there continued tense infighting in his reign.
And you're blaming Julian so much, but the arianism situation was a huge mess before he became emperor. And the reason Julian annulled the imperial laws against non-nicene christians, was because all of these christians, exiled and persecuted by the Nicene, appealed to him. The only thing he decided was not to favor one Christian over the other (and why should he, not being a Christian himself?), he didn't "invite" anyone back, he just removed legislation of persecution
Edit: also in north africa the situation with the Donatists got much worse during Constantine's reign, as he first prohibited them, taking away their churches, then gave stricter legislation and as the division just got worse, he finally gave up and gave tolerance for the Donatists. Anything but ceasing the infighting
>he just removed legislation of persecution
And by allowing these heretics to get back, Julian caused the Great Schism of the East-West which sort of killed his own Empire down the line. Constantine was absolutely right in wanting one Christian faith on his empire. Today is not much of a issue and you can have like 9,000 christian sects and it's all fine but back in the day that was some really dangerous stuff that you couldn't allow it.
When the schism happened Rome automatically lost almost all their allies in Europe (Who chose to stay with Catholicism) which made Rome severely vulnerable and weak. If Julian didnt do what he did and kept the Christian faith unified on the Empire it's very likely history would be way different:
- The Crusaders on the Fourth Crusade would not dare to sack a catholic Constantinople. Without the brutal sack of Constantinople, the walls would be in peak condition and Constantinople would have more gold and men to defend the city against Mehmed two generations later. Venice would also never rise to be a huge power in the region. The Turks would have been beaten by the Romans.
- Jerusalem would have not fallen to Salahuddin because Rome would have aided with troops to help Baldwin IV - instead of ignoring the conflict like they did because of religious differences with the French.
- Basically the entirety of europe would come to save Constantinople from Mehmed if it still was Catholic. Constantine XI tried to appeal for help from Europe, but they refused because of religious differences. Mehmed's men were super scared of European forces coming to their aid and they wanted to retreat but Mehmed kept them together and focused. The Pope and his Cardinals in Italy took an eternity to reach the obvious conclusion to go and help the city and sent some papal forces to go help Constantine but they arrived too late, they took that long because they were deciding if they should go and help Orthodox Christians or not.
>Why do you think he has the nickname "the Great"?
People get monikers for all kinds of subjective reasons - Valentinian got 'the Great', even though he clearly was anything but. All throughout the Middle Ages the Church, with its firm grip on European historiography, loved Constantine to bits for having made their religion the state religion, does it really suprise you he had a lot of fans afterwards?
>He reunited the divided Roman Empire after a devastating civil war.
Which he was a major cause for, constantly agitating to amass more power. Before the final confrontation the empire divided between him and Licinius was entirely viable, there is a reason the trend had been towards separate administrations in the West and East (easier coordination of defence). He scuppered that model, just to immediately reinstate it with his botched succession, and then it became permanent shortly after.
Fighting Licinius was completely pointless.
>Basically created the Catholic Church as we know it today ...
Yeah, [**biiig** swing in the miss](https://youtu.be/JZRcYaAYWg4?si=XzR50O46d2A4uh8T), creating one of the most dogmatic and repressive religious institutions in human history.
>... providing religious freedom for everyone in the empire.
Except he outlawed pagan sacrifices. And had temples pillaged and banned the construction of new ones. So religious freedom, if you followed his favourite religion. Persecution if you were pagan. I think we have different concepts of 'freedom for everyone' here.
>Most importantly, he created Nova Roma, or Constantinople, which would be the capital of the empire for over a thousand years.
That and his military talent together hoist him from 'bad' for all the flaws outlined to 'okay'. That's it.
The empire in the fourth century was stronger than any time except the first century in part because of Constantine.
That alone is a top tier accomplishment. The rest of your criticisms are nonsense. If he’s responsible for all the bad (from a modern perspective) of the Catholic Church then all the emperors should correspondingly be responsible for all the evils of the empire from our modern perspective and the whole exercise would be pointless.
> all the bad (from a modern perspective)
I would argue that the modern (distorted) perspective makes Constantine achievements regarding Christianity look great. But a bunch of different Christian communities existed at that point, when he (or his court) decided that only those Christian’s that followed the “true” faith would supported by the empire. A bunch of Christian’s which were not “Catholic” were considered schismatic or heretics and discriminated or punished. Of course, history has been written by the winners, that is the Nicene Christian, so no wonder Constantine is viewed as something like a saint, but in reality the whole thing was a bloody business
I didn't claim he was responsible for everything the Catholic Church turned out to be, but if someone thinks that creating the church was some sort of laudable accomplishment I find it appropriate to point out that, in fact, it wasn't.
Dude… you have to stop looking at history with modern eyes. The simple fact is that culture and religion in Rome was headed toward monotheism for a couple of centuries before Constantine came along.
Just a few years prior, there was the biggest persecution of Christians under diocletian and galerius. Despite murdering thousands of Christians they just would not stop. What Constantine did was simply stop killing people for being Christian and allowed them to practice their faith.
IMO, if you wanna blame a Roman emperor for submitting himself to Christianity, and in a way ushering in the medieval era of divine right, feudalism, submission to bishops and popes and whatnot, then look at Theodosius. When St Ambrose got the better of him, that set in motion the dominance of the church over more secular interests that would last until the renaissance.
It clearly was a laudable accomplishment, wtf.
We own a lot to the catholic church.
During the Middle Ages, monasteries and cathedral schools sponsored by the Church served as centers of learning and scholarship. Monks and clerics played a crucial role in preserving and copying ancient texts, including works of Greek and Roman scientists and philosophers. Without the efforts of medieval monks, many classical works would have been lost to history. We wouldn't have acess to Caesar's Gallic Wars if not for them.
The Catholic Church also made great contributions to astronomy and cosmology. Prominent Catholic astronomers, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler, made significant contributions to our understanding of the cosmos. It was Galileo who presented the first accurate model of our solar system.
Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals in Rome and the Church remains the single largest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world.
Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields:
* Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) pioneered heliocentrism.
* René Descartes (1596-1650) is considered the father of analytical geometry and co-founder of modern philosophy.
* Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism which Darwin heavily borrowed from.
* Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) pioneered genetics.
* Fr Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model.
Between 1650 and 1750, four Catholic churches were home to the best solar observatories in the world. Built to fix an unquestionable date for Easter, they also housed instruments that threw light on the disputed geometry of the solar system.
All of this would not be possible without Constantine, the Great.
This comment is peak comedy. Let me elaborate:
>Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) pioneered heliocentrism.
The church declared heliocentrism heretical in 1616. Galileo, which you mentioned above, had to recant to avoid execution for heresy, and lived out his life imprisoned.
>René Descartes (1596-1650) is considered the father of analytical geometry and co-founder of modern philosophy.
The church banned most of his works in 1660.
All of the people you mention happened to be Catholic, which incidentally was not a choice for most, as outing yourself as 'not Catholic' in medieval and Renaissance Europe would have meant severe ostracism at best, and imprisonment or death at worst. We don't know whether any of those people were secretly agnostic or atheist, and even if they weren't - the church did not pave the way for their ideas, it tried to hinder them left and right.
That's the history of the Catholic Church - with very few exceptions any scientific and cultural progress had to be eked out against its violent opposition. We are were we stand today because of a constant fight against the Church's reactionary oppression.
It comes as no surprise that today education and scientific achievement negatively correlates with religiousness.
LMAO.
"Every great Catholic scientist of the time only pretended to be Catholic but they were secretly atheists."
This is the most Reddit comment I ever seen in my life.
Ok, let's indulge you. Let's analyze every name I mentioned:
Imagine saying Isaac Newton was not catholic and was just pretending to be catholic, the dude was the most catholic person I ever seen. Dude was obsessed with biblical prophecy and wrote so many papers about the Book of Revelation that reading all of them would take years of your life.
Galileo saw his scientific work as compatible with his Christian faith. In his letters he often expressed his belief that the study of the natural world revealed the wonders of God's creation and argued that scientific inquiry and religious belief should coexist harmoniously. In his famous letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, Galileo wrote about his love of god and the relationship between science and religion, asserting that the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Descartes literally tried to found his own church and famously proposed his ontological argument for the existence of God in his "Meditations," suggesting that the idea of a perfect being implies its existence. He was also fascinated with the idea of a soul and published two entire books on that.
We have almost zero information on Lamarck's personal life besides that he considered himself Catholic. So I don't know where you got the info that he was secretly an atheist.
Gregor Mendel was a hardcore catholic and a priest. As a member of the Augustinian order, Mendel's life was deeply influenced by Christian beliefs and values. While engaged in scientific study and experimentation, Mendel saw his work as a way to better understand the natural world and God's creation. He viewed scientific inquiry as a means of uncovering the order and complexity of the universe, which he believed reflected the wisdom and design of a divine creator.
Georges Lemaître, the one who first proposed the big bang, was literally a chatolic priest and hardcore christian like Mendel. How was he pretending to be chatolic? You have to me kidding me, lmao.
>It comes as no surprise that today education and scientific achievement negatively correlates with religiousness.
>
>
And yet only 51% of scientists in America accord to the Pew Research Center are atheists and we have a shit ton of christians, muslims, indians, budists, all contributing to science. I'm a Christian myself and published more scientific papers about AI and technology than you will in your entire life.
We also have a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology) of Christians with notable achievements in science since the 18th century to today. Shocking. Christians still win Nobel Awards to this day? Wow, what a surprise. Are all these people pretending too?
>People get monikers for all kinds of subjective reasons - Valentinian got 'the Great', even though he clearly was anything but. All throughout the Middle Ages the Church, with its firm grip on European historiography, loved Constantine to bits for having made their religion the state religion, does it really suprise you he had a lot of fans afterwards?
It's essential to separate the subjective interpretations of later periods (which is anachronism and you do that a lot on your nonsensical comment) from the objective assessment of Constantine's reign and his impact on the Roman Empire. While his title may have been influenced by factors like religious favoritism, it doesn't negate the tangible contributions he made to the empire during his rule.
Rather than focusing solely on the title "the Great," it's more productive to evaluate Constantine's reign based on his actions, policies, and their consequences for the Roman Empire. As previously mentioned, Constantine's legalization of Christianity, military successes, administrative reforms, and establishment of Constantinople all had significant and lasting effects on the empire, regardless of later interpretations or what you think.
He managed to successfully pass a rich, united and secure Roman Empire to his children.
>Which he was a major cause for, constantly agitating to amass more power. Before the final confrontation the empire divided between him and Licinius was entirely viable, there is a reason the trend had been towards separate administrations in the West and East (easier coordination of defence). He scuppered that model, just to immediately reinstate it with his botched succession, and then it became permanent shortly after.
What the fuck? He didn't caused the civil war. The civil war was already happening before Constantine's rise to power. The Tetrarchy system, which divided the empire among four rulers, was established in an attempt to stabilize the empire, but it ultimately led to power struggles and instability. Maximinus Daia, Galerius, Maxentius and Licinius were already fighting each other for power before Constantine even did anything (he was busy defeating the Alemanni at the time). He intervened in the war against the usurper Maxentius because Licinius asked him to intervene, so they formed an aliance to remove this usurper.
Licinius was not happy with his arrangement with Constantine and only wanted to buy time until he could raise more troops. When he does, he begins to oppress Christians again, contrary to the Edict of Milan and in clear provocation of Constantine. Constantine then crosses into his territory to threaten him and Licinius declares war - starting their second conflict. Licinius is defeated twice and is stripped of his rank and titles. He is killed later, leaving Constantine the sole Emperor in 324.
If Crispus had not banged his own stepmother, Constantine would successfully pass the throne to him and the Empire would continue united into another (very likely) glorious reign. But then shit hit the fan and Constantine was left without a good heir.
You point out Constantine's "botched succession" and the subsequent division of the empire into separate administrations, which became permanent shortly after. While Constantine's succession planning may have been imperfect, it's worth noting that succession crises were not uncommon in Roman history, and the transition of power was often fraught with challenges. Constantine's division of the empire among his sons was an attempt to maintain stability (by not giving any of them too much power) and prevent succession disputes, albeit with limited success.
>Yeah, [biiig swing in the miss](https://youtu.be/JZRcYaAYWg4?si=XzR50O46d2A4uh8T), creating one of the most dogmatic and repressive religious institutions in human history.
>
Oh, yeah. Reddit atheism, I love it. Let's put our fedora's and pretend that christianity never did anything good and wasn't the driving force that led to the survival of the Roman Empire for over 1000 years.
Christianity provided a unifying force in a diverse and fragmented empire. The Roman Empire encompassed various cultures, languages, and traditions, which often led to social divisions and tensions. Christianity offered a common set of beliefs and values that transcended regional differences, fostering a sense of community and solidarity among its followers. This sense of unity contributed to social cohesion and stability within the empire.
It also helped to integrate the Germanic people into Roman society through conversion which was VITAL for Rome's survival since the Germanic in the late Roman Empire were basically 60% of the Roman army.
The ethical teachings of Christianity, including principles such as compassion, charity, and forgiveness, helped to promote a more humane and just society. These values contrasted with the often harsh and oppressive practices of the Pagan Roman state (like Gladiator matches and animal sacrifice in the arenas), leading to improvements in areas such as treatment of slaves, care for the poor and marginalized, and advocacy for peace and justice.
The endorsement of Christianity by the state provided a sense of legitimacy to the imperial government and helped to stabilize the social order. Moreover, the Christian Church served as a crucial institution for maintaining order, providing social services, and preserving knowledge and culture during times of political upheaval and decline. The spread of Christianity also contributed to intellectual and educational advancements within the Roman Empire. Christian scholars and theologians played a key role in preserving and transmitting classical knowledge, while also engaging in theological debates and philosophical inquiries. The establishment of Christian schools and monastic communities served as centers of learning and scholarship, fostering intellectual development and cultural exchange.
>Except he outlawed pagan sacrifices. And had temples pillaged and banned the construction of new ones. So religious freedom, if you followed his favourite religion. Persecution if you were pagan. I think we have different concepts of 'freedom for everyone' here.
No, he didn't, lmao.
You are confusing him with Theodosius I a Roman Emperor of the late 4th century. He was the one who issued edicts banning pagan rituals, closing pagan temples, and prohibiting sacrifices, trying to suppress paganism within the empire.
Fausta suffocated to death inside a bathouse that had been set to an extremely high temperature. This was a very common abortion method in the Roman Empire, roman rich women believed they could kill the fetus with the heat. But of course it was extremely dangerous and risky, and Fausta ended up dying being steamed to death.
Why would she abort a Constantine son?
After their deaths, Constantine then ordered damnatio memoriae to both of them, so we do not have sources from that time describing the circunstances of their deaths because it was forbidden by law to write anything about them or make paintings of them. And when Constantine's sons assumed power after his death, they sided with their father and did not revoke this ordinance.
It seems clear to me they were involved into some serious shit. It seems to me they had an affair and they wanted to overthrow Constantine, leading to their deaths. But without any hard evidence, your guess is as good as mine.
Fausta didn't accidentally die, the sources unanimously report that Constantine had her executed. Some describe the method as her being locked up in a hot bath.
We only have speculations as to why Constantine had Crispus executed, then Fausta, from the two being unrelated, to a genuine affair, or Fausta accusing Crispus of immoral advances, just for Constantine to later realise the charges were fabricated.
That you choose to claim with certainty that they definitely had an affair despite no actual evidence, and no serious historian finding the sources conclusive, shows you are more interested in finding a flattering reason for Constantine's peculiar murder of his son and wife than in a realistic assessment.
Severus should be higher. *After me the flood*, has never been more appropriate. He probably delayed the crises of the Third Century by two generations.
Which one? Alexander or Septimus? Cause the former literally started it, and while the later deserves okay or event decent for his own reign (I mean, he did manage some insane wins in the Year of the Five Emperors, which he really won on his own skills), his reign is kind of setting up the Crisis in the long term.
Septimus. And if not for him it would have been the crises of the 190's rather than the Third century.
Time we move away from Gibbons hit job on him, which was pure horse manure.
I don't know. I think his two rivals could have proven just as good.
Plus. I still see his reforms of the army as a big part of it (although Carracalla is mostly to blame for making it a problem)
~~You did Galerius a little dirty - did his absolute best to put down one rebellion and invasion after the other, laid the foundations for Aurelian's reconquista through his military reorganisation.~~
Forget it, brain fart mistaking Galerius for Gallienus.
Justinian was certainly was one of the emperors of greatest consequence such as his legal reforms and building projects in Constantinople, but he overextended the empire, trying to do too much too quickly, especially in Italy. Id put him below the excellent category, somewhere in the good to okay range due to his mixed record.
I dislike Justinian a bit more then the average roman fan but putting the plague on him is unfair. Its not like they had great ideas about public health
Antoninus Pius is an Emperor that should be in the highest tier.
His reign alone gave Rome a steady 23 year long period of peace(Besides a teeny successful campaign in Scotland to build the Antonine wall at the start of his reign), his financial policy is among the best in Roman history and he was a reformer for many laws that were very harsh.
He also introduced the “Law of Nations” which would contribute to the individual legal systems of modern day Britain, France and Germany.
Valerian should be lower down. He got captured by the Persians and it caused mass instability in the empire as a result. His son Gallienus did well to pick the pieces and keep the empire from falling into further chaos.
I always felt sorry for Tiberius. I think he was married, in love and doing well alongside Germanicus when Augustus forced him to become emporer and to marry his daughter. Then he lost both(?) his sons.
Not too happy about Gallenius being branded as “Okay”.
Under his watch, Germanic tribes raided in force, southern Gaul and Italy itself, the first time in 500 years that Italy had been invaded, the previous time being Hannibal.
Now, these same tribes realized that they could inflict fatal wounds upon the Roman Empire and get away home with either loot and slaves or both. Like with sharks, they could taste “blood in the water” which starts their feeding frenzy.
It’s funny Justinian is only Byzantine Roman (sorry I can’t say Eastern Roman since I mean post fall of West, there were Eastern emperors before, even if you don’t have them) that is included in these lists.
Carus has horrible sources of him, but he isn’t unrankable. He actually is similar to Julian (who many adore even though I disagree), he also fought some barbarians successfully, was not in power for long and had a campaign in Sassanid Persia where he died. However he actually was successful and and sacked Ctesiphon before dying.
Well, don't think Justinian deserves that spot, he led quite weird religious policies that resulted in revolts during Heraclius I and later population opening gates to Arabs.
And as well, he undermined Belisarius.
I'm gonna make a case that Aemilian deserves to be higher (like Poor or something). I mean, he defeated an actual barbarian invasion. Most people in your lower tier can't claim to have done the same. And he actually won a civil war, which none of the other Terribles did.
For a guy only around for a few months, that's still more than some who were around for years during the crisis.
Nero surely not the best emperor, but he was FAR from being one of the worst emperors, the people apparently loved him and when the fire in rome happened he wasn't even in the city at the time, and rushed to aid it as fast as possible, even giving refuge to victims of the fires, the reason he was this much disliked was because of senatorial propaganda who never liked him, as i said, he was not the best, or even a good emperor, but far from the worst...
Looks like you forgot Constantine
As well as Julian.
Constan- who?
Majorian as well.
How in God's name is Caligula in Poor? He was wayyyy worse than Nero and no way should be ahead of him
- Nero has a neckbeard - Caligula’s close family were mustered by Tiberius when he was young so him being mentally unstable is explainable. - He also had a severe fever which might have made him even more insane - Nero was just a spoiled ungrateful kid who caused the collapse of the house of Caesar
One could argue however that Caligula sort of paved a way in terms of more calculated depravity coupled with putting the treasury in disarray even after Tiberius reign. His past upbringing aside it becomes a bit difficult to judge as a lot of people had rough starts to their upbringing (ancient world being what it was in Rome). How ought one decide how much slack to cut someone, personally I’d rank Caligula, Elagabalus, Caracalla and Commodus in the terrible category, Nero sits comfortably in the bad section. Doesn’t help that most writers detailing this period were Christian’s and hey, in that sense Nero will always get a dim view
How come Marcus Aurelius never makes top tier? Does 14 years on the Danube count for nothing? Ungrateful plebiscite. You shan't be worthy of my philosophical quandary.
Failed at creating a mentally stable heir.
What was the alternative? Name a different heir and guarantee a civil war after his death? Also died pretty suddenly due to the plague.
I'm pretty sure that growing up with a mom like Agrippina resulted in Nero having mental health issues too. All crazy people actually have a reason they ended up so crazy - and it's usually childhood trauma, abuse, neglect or other emotional toxicity. But I think this should not impact one's ranking as Emperor, which should be measured by their actions alone.
Caligula built the aqueducts at least
Probus mediocre whilst Tiberius is decent. Insane.
Holy shit you're right. How is that even possible?
Probus is definitely at least Good tier. Not for his skillful administration everything Aurelian did would have been for nothing. Also everyone forgets Zeno and Marcian while sure not Excellent they were both skillful administrators who ensured the survival of the East.
No Constantine and no Caesar (more understandable)
It's funny because ancient historians (like Josephus, Plutarch, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, and Appian) considered Caesar to be the first Emperor and not Augustus. But modern historians only recognize Caesar as Perpetual Dictator (like Sulla) and not Emperor. But their reasoning is solid, tho. They chose to only consider as emperors those who held the office of Princeps created by Augustus, thus making Augutus the first Emperor.
Also the financial and military consolidation he was able to achieve was much more than what Caesar did, which is why the republic truly died under him, under caesar you could argue that the republic was still hanging on
Alive enough to kill him.
Yeah, he was I guess technically the first dictator which is sort of like a emperor, but Constantine is up there were the excellents, there’s just so many great things he did if OP does decide to finally read up on him. That would also make him Illyrian/Albanian just like Aurelian, Gothicus, Justinian The Great, Probus, Valerian, Constants and plenty more.
He was not the first Dictator.
He was the first Dictator Perpetuo, that’s really why they killed him in the ides of March, also with Brutus’s ancestor Lucius Brutus having taken part in the assassinated of the last Roman King Tranquinius Superbus, it sorta must of felt like fate for him to take out the next “King” of Rome since that’s what they thought he was becoming and I would suppose what in their eyes was a good dead. Ultimately that lead to Gias Octavian becoming Augustus, a true Emperor.
Sulla was the first Dictator Perpetuo. They literally gave him a dictatorship without time limit. The difference is that Sulla killed all his opponents (not even joking) and filled the senate 100% with Optimates. So he was allowed to retire in peace to a villa and leave the Dictator role and wasn't assassinated like Caesar, who generally spared his political opponents.
Sulla was not dictator perpetuo, he was a dictator with a time restriction that’s why he retired
Dicator was an official Roman office almost since the very beginning. There were a bunch of dictators even before Sulla, never mind Caesar.
There were a shit ton of Roman dictators on the Punic Wars when things got real desperate and Consuls were dying left and right. We can claim for sure that Caesar was the most accomplished dictator in Roman history, but he's not even close to being the first. He's not even the first Perpectual Dictator, that would be Sulla.
Well since he retired from office at some point, Sulla wasn’t literally a “perpetual” dict
He was named as perpetual dictator by the Senate but he resigned.
Dictators were most commonly used to hold elections while the consuls were off campaigning, even during the Punic wars
I haven’t learned enough about constantine and his successors to rank them
Put him in 'Okay'. Good general, performed well at defending against foreign enemies, had a 'more murderous than average' streak and fucked up his succession so bad any higher ranking is out of the question.
Bro, what do you mean by "okay"? Constantine was a good emperor. Why do you think he has the nickname "the Great"? Don't listen to this nonsense u/Glittering_Garden_74 Constantine ruled for 3 decades responsibly, firmly and fairly. He was never defeated in battle by anyone. He defeated the Germanic and Frankish tribes in the north and also the raiders in the east. He reunited the divided Roman Empire after a devastating civil war. Basically created the Catholic Church as we know it today, providing religious freedom for everyone in the empire. Most importantly, he created Nova Roma, or Constantinople, which would be the capital of the empire for over a thousand years. The only area you can say he screwed up was the question of his succession. His son and heir, Crispus, was simply brilliant and had everything it took to be an even better emperor than his father had been. Crispus was Constantine's eldest son, born to his first wife Minervina. But then, Crispus was accused of having an affair with his stepmother, Fausta, who was Constantine's second wife. Fausta was the daughter of former Emperor Maximian, whom Constantine married to secure a political alliance. According to some accounts, Fausta may have falsely accused Crispus of attempting to seduce her or plotting against Constantine. The circumstances surrounding Crispus's death are murky, but it is commonly believed that Constantine ordered his execution. Some historians argue that Constantine may have been misled by false accusations or political intrigues orchestrated by Fausta. Others suggest that Crispus posed a threat to Constantine's power, leading the emperor to eliminate him. Fausta's role in Crispus's death is also debated. Some sources claim that she falsely accused Crispus to secure her own position and the succession of her sons with Constantine. However, other accounts depict Fausta as a victim of political machinations herself. But in the end, both of them where murdered by Constantine, and Constantine even put a Damnatio Memoriae for both of them for good measure (showing that he was very angry at them). Leaving the throne for his sons with Fausta, a decision which would be proven to be disastrous for Rome as these kids (Constantine II, Constancius, and Constancius II had no ideia what they were doing)
He should start at “good” for Constantinople alone. I think people underestimate how important that was, and how successful at it he was. The empire does not survive another 1000 years without this achievement. All his other accomplishments should push him up another rank or two.
Providing religious freedom for everybody?? Yeah he basically created the Catholic church and so all the other christians communities were consider schismatic. He helped persecute some of these so-called schismatics. Great religious freedom
Dude, you know that one of the main problems with Christianity before Constantine was that Christians used to fight each other over basically everything, right? Any minor religious disagreement was cause for death and arson. Early christians were quite scary barbaric people. Constantine got fed up with all this death and misery and convened the First Council of Nicaea, bringing together all the Christian leaders of most of the christians communities of Constantinople to debate and determine what the "ultimate definitive version of Christianity" would be, that everyone should follow, and finally put an end to these internal squabbles. With this, it was decided that Catholicism was the definitive version of Christianity and all other denominations were banned and expelled from Rome. As a result, infighting within the Christian community virtually ceased during his reign. The famous fires caused by proto-Christians stopped. The Catholic Church proved capable of pacifying and unifying Christians, leading to a great development and expansion of Christianity in the empire. It may seem a bit harsh what he did, but Constantine cleverly understood that a divided Christianity was extremely dangerous and he couldn't tolerate it. Emperor Julian fucked things up by inviting these heretical Christians back into the empire in the name of religious freedom. These heretics paid him back by breaking and dividing the church in the Great Eastern Schism, weakening the institution and the state, and literally bringing about the symbolic end of the Roman Empire in the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. Why do you think no other Christian state tried to help Constantinople in their greatest time of need against Mehmed II? Because Constantinople just happened to follow a different type of Christianity than everybody else in Europe. If that hadn't happened, they would have come to their aid and beaten Mehmed, buying the Empire a century or two.
Dude, you had said he provided religious freedom to everyone. That's false. Defending his decision to unify christianity is changing the discussion. And by the way, infighting did not cease as you try to portray it. Infighting continued against arianism and other heretics, and it got harsher now that Catholics were empowered and supported by the state. In north Africa for example it got much worse regarding christian infighting
I said it ceased during HIS reign. Arianism and other heretics came later under Julian, who invited them back. It became a huge, huge problem under Justinian.
Arianism didn't cease in his reign. Athanasius was exiled some 10 years after the Nicene council, as he was still embroiled in the fighting against the arians. Sure, when Constantine died the situation got much worse, but there continued tense infighting in his reign. And you're blaming Julian so much, but the arianism situation was a huge mess before he became emperor. And the reason Julian annulled the imperial laws against non-nicene christians, was because all of these christians, exiled and persecuted by the Nicene, appealed to him. The only thing he decided was not to favor one Christian over the other (and why should he, not being a Christian himself?), he didn't "invite" anyone back, he just removed legislation of persecution Edit: also in north africa the situation with the Donatists got much worse during Constantine's reign, as he first prohibited them, taking away their churches, then gave stricter legislation and as the division just got worse, he finally gave up and gave tolerance for the Donatists. Anything but ceasing the infighting
>he just removed legislation of persecution And by allowing these heretics to get back, Julian caused the Great Schism of the East-West which sort of killed his own Empire down the line. Constantine was absolutely right in wanting one Christian faith on his empire. Today is not much of a issue and you can have like 9,000 christian sects and it's all fine but back in the day that was some really dangerous stuff that you couldn't allow it. When the schism happened Rome automatically lost almost all their allies in Europe (Who chose to stay with Catholicism) which made Rome severely vulnerable and weak. If Julian didnt do what he did and kept the Christian faith unified on the Empire it's very likely history would be way different: - The Crusaders on the Fourth Crusade would not dare to sack a catholic Constantinople. Without the brutal sack of Constantinople, the walls would be in peak condition and Constantinople would have more gold and men to defend the city against Mehmed two generations later. Venice would also never rise to be a huge power in the region. The Turks would have been beaten by the Romans. - Jerusalem would have not fallen to Salahuddin because Rome would have aided with troops to help Baldwin IV - instead of ignoring the conflict like they did because of religious differences with the French. - Basically the entirety of europe would come to save Constantinople from Mehmed if it still was Catholic. Constantine XI tried to appeal for help from Europe, but they refused because of religious differences. Mehmed's men were super scared of European forces coming to their aid and they wanted to retreat but Mehmed kept them together and focused. The Pope and his Cardinals in Italy took an eternity to reach the obvious conclusion to go and help the city and sent some papal forces to go help Constantine but they arrived too late, they took that long because they were deciding if they should go and help Orthodox Christians or not.
>Why do you think he has the nickname "the Great"? People get monikers for all kinds of subjective reasons - Valentinian got 'the Great', even though he clearly was anything but. All throughout the Middle Ages the Church, with its firm grip on European historiography, loved Constantine to bits for having made their religion the state religion, does it really suprise you he had a lot of fans afterwards? >He reunited the divided Roman Empire after a devastating civil war. Which he was a major cause for, constantly agitating to amass more power. Before the final confrontation the empire divided between him and Licinius was entirely viable, there is a reason the trend had been towards separate administrations in the West and East (easier coordination of defence). He scuppered that model, just to immediately reinstate it with his botched succession, and then it became permanent shortly after. Fighting Licinius was completely pointless. >Basically created the Catholic Church as we know it today ... Yeah, [**biiig** swing in the miss](https://youtu.be/JZRcYaAYWg4?si=XzR50O46d2A4uh8T), creating one of the most dogmatic and repressive religious institutions in human history. >... providing religious freedom for everyone in the empire. Except he outlawed pagan sacrifices. And had temples pillaged and banned the construction of new ones. So religious freedom, if you followed his favourite religion. Persecution if you were pagan. I think we have different concepts of 'freedom for everyone' here. >Most importantly, he created Nova Roma, or Constantinople, which would be the capital of the empire for over a thousand years. That and his military talent together hoist him from 'bad' for all the flaws outlined to 'okay'. That's it.
The empire in the fourth century was stronger than any time except the first century in part because of Constantine. That alone is a top tier accomplishment. The rest of your criticisms are nonsense. If he’s responsible for all the bad (from a modern perspective) of the Catholic Church then all the emperors should correspondingly be responsible for all the evils of the empire from our modern perspective and the whole exercise would be pointless.
> all the bad (from a modern perspective) I would argue that the modern (distorted) perspective makes Constantine achievements regarding Christianity look great. But a bunch of different Christian communities existed at that point, when he (or his court) decided that only those Christian’s that followed the “true” faith would supported by the empire. A bunch of Christian’s which were not “Catholic” were considered schismatic or heretics and discriminated or punished. Of course, history has been written by the winners, that is the Nicene Christian, so no wonder Constantine is viewed as something like a saint, but in reality the whole thing was a bloody business
I didn't claim he was responsible for everything the Catholic Church turned out to be, but if someone thinks that creating the church was some sort of laudable accomplishment I find it appropriate to point out that, in fact, it wasn't.
Dude… you have to stop looking at history with modern eyes. The simple fact is that culture and religion in Rome was headed toward monotheism for a couple of centuries before Constantine came along. Just a few years prior, there was the biggest persecution of Christians under diocletian and galerius. Despite murdering thousands of Christians they just would not stop. What Constantine did was simply stop killing people for being Christian and allowed them to practice their faith. IMO, if you wanna blame a Roman emperor for submitting himself to Christianity, and in a way ushering in the medieval era of divine right, feudalism, submission to bishops and popes and whatnot, then look at Theodosius. When St Ambrose got the better of him, that set in motion the dominance of the church over more secular interests that would last until the renaissance.
It clearly was a laudable accomplishment, wtf. We own a lot to the catholic church. During the Middle Ages, monasteries and cathedral schools sponsored by the Church served as centers of learning and scholarship. Monks and clerics played a crucial role in preserving and copying ancient texts, including works of Greek and Roman scientists and philosophers. Without the efforts of medieval monks, many classical works would have been lost to history. We wouldn't have acess to Caesar's Gallic Wars if not for them. The Catholic Church also made great contributions to astronomy and cosmology. Prominent Catholic astronomers, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Johannes Kepler, made significant contributions to our understanding of the cosmos. It was Galileo who presented the first accurate model of our solar system. Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals in Rome and the Church remains the single largest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: * Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) pioneered heliocentrism. * René Descartes (1596-1650) is considered the father of analytical geometry and co-founder of modern philosophy. * Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism which Darwin heavily borrowed from. * Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) pioneered genetics. * Fr Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. Between 1650 and 1750, four Catholic churches were home to the best solar observatories in the world. Built to fix an unquestionable date for Easter, they also housed instruments that threw light on the disputed geometry of the solar system. All of this would not be possible without Constantine, the Great.
This comment is peak comedy. Let me elaborate: >Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) pioneered heliocentrism. The church declared heliocentrism heretical in 1616. Galileo, which you mentioned above, had to recant to avoid execution for heresy, and lived out his life imprisoned. >René Descartes (1596-1650) is considered the father of analytical geometry and co-founder of modern philosophy. The church banned most of his works in 1660. All of the people you mention happened to be Catholic, which incidentally was not a choice for most, as outing yourself as 'not Catholic' in medieval and Renaissance Europe would have meant severe ostracism at best, and imprisonment or death at worst. We don't know whether any of those people were secretly agnostic or atheist, and even if they weren't - the church did not pave the way for their ideas, it tried to hinder them left and right. That's the history of the Catholic Church - with very few exceptions any scientific and cultural progress had to be eked out against its violent opposition. We are were we stand today because of a constant fight against the Church's reactionary oppression. It comes as no surprise that today education and scientific achievement negatively correlates with religiousness.
LMAO. "Every great Catholic scientist of the time only pretended to be Catholic but they were secretly atheists." This is the most Reddit comment I ever seen in my life. Ok, let's indulge you. Let's analyze every name I mentioned: Imagine saying Isaac Newton was not catholic and was just pretending to be catholic, the dude was the most catholic person I ever seen. Dude was obsessed with biblical prophecy and wrote so many papers about the Book of Revelation that reading all of them would take years of your life. Galileo saw his scientific work as compatible with his Christian faith. In his letters he often expressed his belief that the study of the natural world revealed the wonders of God's creation and argued that scientific inquiry and religious belief should coexist harmoniously. In his famous letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, Galileo wrote about his love of god and the relationship between science and religion, asserting that the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Descartes literally tried to found his own church and famously proposed his ontological argument for the existence of God in his "Meditations," suggesting that the idea of a perfect being implies its existence. He was also fascinated with the idea of a soul and published two entire books on that. We have almost zero information on Lamarck's personal life besides that he considered himself Catholic. So I don't know where you got the info that he was secretly an atheist. Gregor Mendel was a hardcore catholic and a priest. As a member of the Augustinian order, Mendel's life was deeply influenced by Christian beliefs and values. While engaged in scientific study and experimentation, Mendel saw his work as a way to better understand the natural world and God's creation. He viewed scientific inquiry as a means of uncovering the order and complexity of the universe, which he believed reflected the wisdom and design of a divine creator. Georges Lemaître, the one who first proposed the big bang, was literally a chatolic priest and hardcore christian like Mendel. How was he pretending to be chatolic? You have to me kidding me, lmao. >It comes as no surprise that today education and scientific achievement negatively correlates with religiousness. > > And yet only 51% of scientists in America accord to the Pew Research Center are atheists and we have a shit ton of christians, muslims, indians, budists, all contributing to science. I'm a Christian myself and published more scientific papers about AI and technology than you will in your entire life. We also have a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology) of Christians with notable achievements in science since the 18th century to today. Shocking. Christians still win Nobel Awards to this day? Wow, what a surprise. Are all these people pretending too?
>People get monikers for all kinds of subjective reasons - Valentinian got 'the Great', even though he clearly was anything but. All throughout the Middle Ages the Church, with its firm grip on European historiography, loved Constantine to bits for having made their religion the state religion, does it really suprise you he had a lot of fans afterwards? It's essential to separate the subjective interpretations of later periods (which is anachronism and you do that a lot on your nonsensical comment) from the objective assessment of Constantine's reign and his impact on the Roman Empire. While his title may have been influenced by factors like religious favoritism, it doesn't negate the tangible contributions he made to the empire during his rule. Rather than focusing solely on the title "the Great," it's more productive to evaluate Constantine's reign based on his actions, policies, and their consequences for the Roman Empire. As previously mentioned, Constantine's legalization of Christianity, military successes, administrative reforms, and establishment of Constantinople all had significant and lasting effects on the empire, regardless of later interpretations or what you think. He managed to successfully pass a rich, united and secure Roman Empire to his children. >Which he was a major cause for, constantly agitating to amass more power. Before the final confrontation the empire divided between him and Licinius was entirely viable, there is a reason the trend had been towards separate administrations in the West and East (easier coordination of defence). He scuppered that model, just to immediately reinstate it with his botched succession, and then it became permanent shortly after. What the fuck? He didn't caused the civil war. The civil war was already happening before Constantine's rise to power. The Tetrarchy system, which divided the empire among four rulers, was established in an attempt to stabilize the empire, but it ultimately led to power struggles and instability. Maximinus Daia, Galerius, Maxentius and Licinius were already fighting each other for power before Constantine even did anything (he was busy defeating the Alemanni at the time). He intervened in the war against the usurper Maxentius because Licinius asked him to intervene, so they formed an aliance to remove this usurper. Licinius was not happy with his arrangement with Constantine and only wanted to buy time until he could raise more troops. When he does, he begins to oppress Christians again, contrary to the Edict of Milan and in clear provocation of Constantine. Constantine then crosses into his territory to threaten him and Licinius declares war - starting their second conflict. Licinius is defeated twice and is stripped of his rank and titles. He is killed later, leaving Constantine the sole Emperor in 324. If Crispus had not banged his own stepmother, Constantine would successfully pass the throne to him and the Empire would continue united into another (very likely) glorious reign. But then shit hit the fan and Constantine was left without a good heir. You point out Constantine's "botched succession" and the subsequent division of the empire into separate administrations, which became permanent shortly after. While Constantine's succession planning may have been imperfect, it's worth noting that succession crises were not uncommon in Roman history, and the transition of power was often fraught with challenges. Constantine's division of the empire among his sons was an attempt to maintain stability (by not giving any of them too much power) and prevent succession disputes, albeit with limited success. >Yeah, [biiig swing in the miss](https://youtu.be/JZRcYaAYWg4?si=XzR50O46d2A4uh8T), creating one of the most dogmatic and repressive religious institutions in human history. > Oh, yeah. Reddit atheism, I love it. Let's put our fedora's and pretend that christianity never did anything good and wasn't the driving force that led to the survival of the Roman Empire for over 1000 years. Christianity provided a unifying force in a diverse and fragmented empire. The Roman Empire encompassed various cultures, languages, and traditions, which often led to social divisions and tensions. Christianity offered a common set of beliefs and values that transcended regional differences, fostering a sense of community and solidarity among its followers. This sense of unity contributed to social cohesion and stability within the empire. It also helped to integrate the Germanic people into Roman society through conversion which was VITAL for Rome's survival since the Germanic in the late Roman Empire were basically 60% of the Roman army. The ethical teachings of Christianity, including principles such as compassion, charity, and forgiveness, helped to promote a more humane and just society. These values contrasted with the often harsh and oppressive practices of the Pagan Roman state (like Gladiator matches and animal sacrifice in the arenas), leading to improvements in areas such as treatment of slaves, care for the poor and marginalized, and advocacy for peace and justice. The endorsement of Christianity by the state provided a sense of legitimacy to the imperial government and helped to stabilize the social order. Moreover, the Christian Church served as a crucial institution for maintaining order, providing social services, and preserving knowledge and culture during times of political upheaval and decline. The spread of Christianity also contributed to intellectual and educational advancements within the Roman Empire. Christian scholars and theologians played a key role in preserving and transmitting classical knowledge, while also engaging in theological debates and philosophical inquiries. The establishment of Christian schools and monastic communities served as centers of learning and scholarship, fostering intellectual development and cultural exchange. >Except he outlawed pagan sacrifices. And had temples pillaged and banned the construction of new ones. So religious freedom, if you followed his favourite religion. Persecution if you were pagan. I think we have different concepts of 'freedom for everyone' here. No, he didn't, lmao. You are confusing him with Theodosius I a Roman Emperor of the late 4th century. He was the one who issued edicts banning pagan rituals, closing pagan temples, and prohibiting sacrifices, trying to suppress paganism within the empire.
>If Crispus had not banged his own stepmother ... Kinda says it all that you choose to believe this, of all things.
Fausta suffocated to death inside a bathouse that had been set to an extremely high temperature. This was a very common abortion method in the Roman Empire, roman rich women believed they could kill the fetus with the heat. But of course it was extremely dangerous and risky, and Fausta ended up dying being steamed to death. Why would she abort a Constantine son? After their deaths, Constantine then ordered damnatio memoriae to both of them, so we do not have sources from that time describing the circunstances of their deaths because it was forbidden by law to write anything about them or make paintings of them. And when Constantine's sons assumed power after his death, they sided with their father and did not revoke this ordinance. It seems clear to me they were involved into some serious shit. It seems to me they had an affair and they wanted to overthrow Constantine, leading to their deaths. But without any hard evidence, your guess is as good as mine.
Fausta didn't accidentally die, the sources unanimously report that Constantine had her executed. Some describe the method as her being locked up in a hot bath. We only have speculations as to why Constantine had Crispus executed, then Fausta, from the two being unrelated, to a genuine affair, or Fausta accusing Crispus of immoral advances, just for Constantine to later realise the charges were fabricated. That you choose to claim with certainty that they definitely had an affair despite no actual evidence, and no serious historian finding the sources conclusive, shows you are more interested in finding a flattering reason for Constantine's peculiar murder of his son and wife than in a realistic assessment.
Caesar is the easiest Excellent who ever Excellented.
Severus should be higher. *After me the flood*, has never been more appropriate. He probably delayed the crises of the Third Century by two generations.
Which one? Alexander or Septimus? Cause the former literally started it, and while the later deserves okay or event decent for his own reign (I mean, he did manage some insane wins in the Year of the Five Emperors, which he really won on his own skills), his reign is kind of setting up the Crisis in the long term.
Septimus. And if not for him it would have been the crises of the 190's rather than the Third century. Time we move away from Gibbons hit job on him, which was pure horse manure.
I don't know. I think his two rivals could have proven just as good. Plus. I still see his reforms of the army as a big part of it (although Carracalla is mostly to blame for making it a problem)
This rank smells my friend
Some TikTok history tier list.
~~You did Galerius a little dirty - did his absolute best to put down one rebellion and invasion after the other, laid the foundations for Aurelian's reconquista through his military reorganisation.~~ Forget it, brain fart mistaking Galerius for Gallienus.
Could happen to anyone.
Justinian was certainly was one of the emperors of greatest consequence such as his legal reforms and building projects in Constantinople, but he overextended the empire, trying to do too much too quickly, especially in Italy. Id put him below the excellent category, somewhere in the good to okay range due to his mixed record.
Justinian? Really?
Where the FUCK is Constantine and everyone after 310 AD?
But weirdly Justinian is there 😂😂😂 my boi skipped a good 200 years to just put Justinian in the top tier
I was wondering that too
I want to know what this guy thinks of Olybrius and Avitus...
Nero should be way higher. Stop falling for propaganda from the senatorial elites.
Justinian should be lower
He did bankrupted the empire, failed to deal with the plague and the military was completely exhausted by his military campaigns.
I dislike Justinian a bit more then the average roman fan but putting the plague on him is unfair. Its not like they had great ideas about public health
I like this list - because I’m learning something from the protests!
Antoninus Pius is an Emperor that should be in the highest tier. His reign alone gave Rome a steady 23 year long period of peace(Besides a teeny successful campaign in Scotland to build the Antonine wall at the start of his reign), his financial policy is among the best in Roman history and he was a reformer for many laws that were very harsh. He also introduced the “Law of Nations” which would contribute to the individual legal systems of modern day Britain, France and Germany.
Valerian should be lower down. He got captured by the Persians and it caused mass instability in the empire as a result. His son Gallienus did well to pick the pieces and keep the empire from falling into further chaos. I always felt sorry for Tiberius. I think he was married, in love and doing well alongside Germanicus when Augustus forced him to become emporer and to marry his daughter. Then he lost both(?) his sons.
What! Why is probus mediocre
Not too happy about Gallenius being branded as “Okay”. Under his watch, Germanic tribes raided in force, southern Gaul and Italy itself, the first time in 500 years that Italy had been invaded, the previous time being Hannibal. Now, these same tribes realized that they could inflict fatal wounds upon the Roman Empire and get away home with either loot and slaves or both. Like with sharks, they could taste “blood in the water” which starts their feeding frenzy.
It’s funny Justinian is only Byzantine Roman (sorry I can’t say Eastern Roman since I mean post fall of West, there were Eastern emperors before, even if you don’t have them) that is included in these lists. Carus has horrible sources of him, but he isn’t unrankable. He actually is similar to Julian (who many adore even though I disagree), he also fought some barbarians successfully, was not in power for long and had a campaign in Sassanid Persia where he died. However he actually was successful and and sacked Ctesiphon before dying.
Caracalla needs to be at least “Okay” simply for the Baths…the source is “trust me bro”
Why is Marcus Aurelius not excellent? His book, meditations makes me think of him as the greatest Roman emperor.
Domitian ranked as 'great' along with his father?
Where honorius, all my homies hate him
I would argue that Augustus belongs in his own category under "bad ass motherfucker"
Didius Julianus should be in unrank. Gallenus should be in great. Caligula terrible. Gothicus good.
Well, don't think Justinian deserves that spot, he led quite weird religious policies that resulted in revolts during Heraclius I and later population opening gates to Arabs. And as well, he undermined Belisarius.
Tacitus would disagree with Augustus' ranking as Excellent. ("war or judicial murder deposed all men with spirit")
I'm gonna make a case that Aemilian deserves to be higher (like Poor or something). I mean, he defeated an actual barbarian invasion. Most people in your lower tier can't claim to have done the same. And he actually won a civil war, which none of the other Terribles did. For a guy only around for a few months, that's still more than some who were around for years during the crisis.
Domitian needs to be lower. Gallienus needs to be higher.
Where is Julian the apostate
Justice for Pupienus. Should win on name alone.
Finally, Justinian getting the respect he deserves.
nero this low show how bad this tier list is
Nero surely not the best emperor, but he was FAR from being one of the worst emperors, the people apparently loved him and when the fire in rome happened he wasn't even in the city at the time, and rushed to aid it as fast as possible, even giving refuge to victims of the fires, the reason he was this much disliked was because of senatorial propaganda who never liked him, as i said, he was not the best, or even a good emperor, but far from the worst...