I have been bingeing a fair bit on Ancient Roman History recently, specifically working my way through Mike Duncan’s old History of Rome podcasts.

Now, the thing about Roman History is that everyone loves hearing about the madder Emperors. They’re simply so much fun, at least when viewed from a safe distance. Like a couple of thousand years’ distance. And, sure enough, if you Google ‘Worst Roman Emperor’, multiple different people have compiled lists for the morbid entertainment of modernity. Such lists aren’t really useful in the sense of meaningfully understanding history, because they try to arbitrarily compare the quality of leaders from very different periods. One ends up dealing with the proverbial apples and oranges, while (more often than not) inserting a fair amount of subjective moral judgement. But… it’s still an amusing game for history geeks, which is why people keep doing it. Hence today’s post.

Anyone constructing such a list of Bad Emperors really needs to flag their judgement criteria at the start. Simply murdering lots of innocent people is very different from being Bad for the Empire – after all, the Empire itself was an inherently brutal entity from its very birth. Being deeply unpopular – or wearing dresses – is also very different from being Bad for the Empire. Unpopularity with the (history-writing) Senate elites says nothing about unpopularity with the People or the Army, and vice versa. Hell, even being out-and-out mad is not necessarily Bad for the Empire, depending on the circumstances.

So before I offer my own attempt at a list, I thought I would specify both my own parameters of judgement criteria.

Criteria:

(i) I will consider the Empire from its founding by Augustus, up until its final West/East division after the death of Theodosius, and the Western Empire up until the deposing of Romulus Augustus in A.D. 476. So no Byzantines.

(ii) How much (avoidable) damage was done by these people to the health and development of the wider Empire? Yes, this creates an inherent bias against the later Emperors, but as mentioned, subjectivity is an inherent feature of this sort of project. It is also all very well to suggest that I’d consider Caligula differently if he’d been two centuries later… but the simple fact is that he wasn’t two centuries later. I can only judge him for his time.

Well and good. Now on with the list…

5. Petronius Maximus (A.D. 455)

Two and a half months on the throne… and yet still so terrible that he earns a place on this list. Even before he gained the throne, he managed to convince (nasty and incompetent) Emperor Valentinian III to murder the (nasty but competent) general Aetius… which, to quote an ancient source was the Emperor “cutting off his right hand with his left.”

Petronius Maximus then orchestrated the murder of Valentinian III. Good on him, I suppose – no-one would accuse Valentinian of being anything other than awful. He then forced Valentinian’s widow to marry him… more problematic, though it makes political sense. The real disaster? Getting Valentinan’s daughter to marry his son. The daughter who was already promised to the son of the King of the Vandals.

The Vandals were a bit miffed.

The result was a Sack of Rome so spectacular that the word ‘vandal’ to this day has taken on a meaning of its own. Seriously – the Sack of A.D. 455 makes the one of A.D. 410 look positively tame, while arguably being a more violent and meaningful manifestation of the End of Rome than the quiet deposing of Romulus Augustus in A.D. 476. Petronius Maximus’ response? To run away. He was murdered by a mob before he could. I imagine no-one missed him.

4. Commodus (A.D. 180-192)

Best known as the villain from the film Gladiator (2000), history has traditionally been cruel to Commodus, albeit with copious justification. He’s a terrible Emperor following on from the Five Good Emperors, and set the scene for what came later… the Year of the Five Emperors (A.D. 193), the Severan Dynasty, and the momentous Crisis of the Third Century. He took a stable situation, and flushed it down the toilet, to a degree where it never completely recovered. As such, Commodus represents an inflection point in Roman History. Not quite the Beginning of the End, but maybe the Beginning of the Beginning of the End.

Commodus was terrible by whichever standard you apply, so he turns up on everyone’s Worst Emperor list, though in ranking him here, I’m actually ignoring some of the stuff that gets thrown at him. Commodus’ obsession with personally taking part in gladiatorial combat was an immense cultural no-no in Rome… but since it’s the long-term influences that interest me, I’ll ignore that. No, for my purposes, it was Commodus bringing back the Bad Old Days of purges and Imperial paranoia, and other cruelties that hadn’t been seen in a century. Well that, and bankrupting the treasury and vandalising the administration.

Though Tiberius purged people, at least he left a stable and financially sound Empire. When Caligula did his thing, there were at least some quieter times ahead. And at least Domitian was competent. Corrupt, lazy, and brutal, Commodus was something different. This time, the norms were changing, with no returning.

(Sure, it didn’t have to be this way. Pertinax might have fixed things, had he been given the opportunity, rendering Commodus an unhappy memory. But Pertinax was assassinated, and the rest is history).

3. Caracalla (A.D. 211-217)

I earlier noted that simply murdering lots of innocent people does not inherently make one a Bad Emperor. But Caracalla managed to make his sadism so universal that it is at least worth noting. Between murdering his own brother in the presence of their mother (a murder he lied horribly about), launching purges against perceived supporters of his brother, massacring Alexandria for a perceived slight, and causing a diplomatic incident by massacring a wedding… Caracalla was someone special. Psychopathic madmen swimming in blood was no longer just a matter for the capital, but rather something that afflicted the wider Empire too.

More long-term, Caracalla’s most significant damage to the Empire was his lavish expenditures on the Army (Caracalla was famously following the deathbed advice of Dear Old Dad here, without his father’s competence). This not only messed up the Imperial finances, but raised the Army’s expectations to obscenely unrealistic levels… a situation that well and truly set the scene for the Banana Republic shenanigans later in the Third Century. Later attempts to put the Army back in its bottle just angered all-too powerful people, and when that particular fuse was lit… all hell would break lose.

No-one these days has anything nice to say about Commodus, but at least the common people appreciated his obsession with the games. Caracalla? Rather than the misplaced seeking of goodwill, it was as though he was taunting the entire Empire to kill him. Even the one positive thing he did – giving citizenship to all free men – was simply about expanding the tax base, so he could spend more on the Army. The extra taxation resulted in a drain of wealth from the provinces, with all that entailed.

2. Maximinius Thrax (A.D. 235-238)

A damn cool name, with a memorable physique (the guy was gigantic). And someone from the lower classes, for a change. What is not to love?

Quite a bit, actually.

That stockpile of dynamite that had been building under Commodus, the Year of the Five Emperors, and the Severan Military Dictatorship? Maximinius was the chap who lit the fuse. By murdering the previous Emperor, and getting himself acclaimed by his soldiers, Maximinius opened a new epoch in Roman Imperial History: a fifty year calamity marked by civil wars, plagues, invasions, and economic collapse. Emperors rose and fell, depending on the whims of the soldiers – and, honestly, the Empire should have collapsed utterly. Taking a wider view, Maximinius opened the door for five centuries of general European chaos, punctuated only by brief calm. That’s quite the long-term legacy (his overthrow even led to the Year of the Six Emperors).

More immediately, the oppressive apparatus he constructed to fund his soldiers angered everyone else, and Rome is rather lucky that he was murdered before he could get back to purge his opponents.

Honorius (A.D. 395-423)

The worst of the worst is someone who never gets the glamour of Caligula or Nero. To be fair to Caligula and Nero, they actually did stuff. There is nothing glamorous about Honorius, a man who formed his own personal power vacuum at a time when the Western Empire – structurally weakened via division from the East – sorely needed an active leader. Honorius, like US President James Buchanan in 1857, inherited an awkward situation, and turned it into a catastrophe through mind-numbing incompetence.

This was a period where Rome was under intense pressure from barbarians. The one guy who was left frantically holding the situation together? A general named Stilicho, who ran around saving the day again and again (sure, he made mistakes too, but they were understandable mistakes, and at least he was trying). Honorius – under urging from one of his ministers – had Stilicho executed. Not just that, but he purged (and tortured!) all Stilicho’s associates too. That’s what competence gets you under Honorius.

And as for the barbarians, the Gothic leader Alaric had made a deal with Stilicho. The Goths wanted some land, and, all things considered, it was a pretty decent deal for the Empire. Honorius reneged on the deal. Alaric forced the city of Rome to renew the deal. Honorius then screwed Alaric over again.

Alaric sacked Rome in A.D. 410, to make an understandable point. It wasn’t even a nasty sack (that would wait for A.D. 455), and it wasn’t even the first time in living memory Rome had suffered for screwing over barbarians (*cough* Adrianople in 378 *cough*)… but it was a massive loss of prestige. One entirely avoidable, and one that can be laid fairly at the feet of Honorius.

The sixth century Byzantine Historian, Procopius, provides an anecdote about Honorius’ response to the Sack:

“At that time they say that the Emperor Honorius in Ravenna received the message from one of the eunuchs, evidently a keeper of the poultry, that Rome had perished. And he cried out and said, ‘And yet it has just eaten from my hands!’ For he had a very large cock, Rome by name; and the eunuch comprehending his words said that it was the city of Rome which had perished at the hands of Alaric, and the emperor with a sigh of relief answered quickly: ‘But I thought that my fowl Rome had perished.’ So great, they say, was the folly with which this emperor was possessed.”

Procopius was writing more than a century afterwards, so take the anecdote with a grain of salt, but one gets the picture of how the Emperor was viewed in late Antiquity. It’s not a flattering portrait (also, in contrast to the accusations against Caligula, this is less about a tyrant oppressing the elite, and more about a muppet who let the Empire fall. I know which one triggers my Badness Detector more).

The cherry on top is that Honorius was also the Emperor who told the British to look after themselves, as far as defence was concerned. Yes, Rome was in no position to defend its British citizens, given that it had other concerns, but those other concerns were a reflection of Honorius’ mismanagement.

I am not a fan of Great Man History (or in this case Terrible Man History), and it would be wrong to pin the collapse of the Western Empire on Honorius. There are always deeper causes for things like this, and I do take the view that the bigger mystery is how the Western Empire lasted as long as it did, given the structural and economic headwinds. But to see Honorius’ regrettably lengthy reign as anything other than twenty-eight years of disaster and mismanagement, at the worst possible time, is simply impossible. Honorius gets my vote as the Worst Emperor Rome ever had.

***

But wait, you say. What about Emperor X? They were appalling! Very well, let me justify those who missed the cut.

Notable omissions:

(i) Caligula (A.D. 37-41)

Everyone’s go-to example of a sadistic monster – he’s practically a by-word for terrible Roman Emperors…. except that there are two problems. Firstly, the sources we have on him (Suetonius) are both unreliable and written much later. Reading Suetonius to understand Caligula is rather like reading British tabloid newspapers to understand Napolean. Secondly, even if we do run with the image of Caligula the Monster, unlike Commodus and Caracalla he did not do any enduring damage to the Empire, which was still on the rise.

(ii) Nero (A.D. 54-68)

Famous for fiddling while Rome burned (he didn’t – the fiddle hadn’t been invented yet, for a start) and persecuting Christians. The latter has proved problematic to his long-term reputation, since, well, eventually the Christians would be writing the histories. However, when viewed in context, there seems to be decent evidence of Nero’s popularity among the common people – multiple different people turned up after his death, each claiming to be him, which implies the Romans themselves didn’t exactly see him as Hitler. Plus, even if he wasn’t great, the Empire was not exactly wrecked, and indeed was still half a century away from its peak.

(iii) Tiberius (A.D. 14-37)

Remembered for the paranoia, the purges and the perversions. The latter may be an exaggeration, but I can think we can safely say the man was not liked (‘to the Tiber with Tiberius!’). On the other hand, despite his personal issues – and the bloodthirstiness of his purges – he left the Empire in a strong and financially stable position.

(iv) Domitian (A.D. 81-96)

Another case of traditional history as written by the elites – they couldn’t stand the guy. And to be fair, no-one can doubt that Domitian was highly autocratic, with all the issues that come from that. However, modern historians are generally much nicer to him, seeing him as efficiently autocratic, and laying the groundwork for the positives of the Second Century. Since my criteria focuses on whether an Emperor was Bad for the Empire, that means I can’t really include him in a list of Worst Emperors.

(v) Elagabalus (A.D. 218-222)

The one everyone remembers for being a Deviant Weirdo with a solar religious fetish. Rose petals optional. In contrast to the others who have made the ‘notable omissions’ list, no-one ever accuses Elagabalus of being a tyrant. His biggest sin was incompetence… though seeing as he was a teenage puppet, that is a bit harsh. And he certainly violated cultural norms. The reason he didn’t make the cut? Simple – the wider Empire was no worse in A.D. 222 than 218. After his death, everyone drew the curtain across his reign, and acted as though it never happened. The fact they were in a position to do this suggests he wasn’t that Bad, at least long term.

(vi) Valentinian III (A.D. 425-455)

I actually agonised over this one. Valentinian – along with Honorius – is one of the Great Muppets of the Fifth Century. A self-indulgent prat, who murdered the only useful guy around (Aetius)… with his own hand, no less, and who continued the rot. In the end, I left him off the list, on the basis that he didn’t actually induce a Sack of Rome during his reign. Maybe he at least deserves an honourable mention?

(vii) Didius Julianus (A.D. 193)

Yes, he literally bought the Empire. Yes, it was the most humiliating moment in the history of the Praetorian Guard. But, honestly, apart from playing a role in a monstrous farce, he did little harm to anyone.

(viii) Diocletian (A.D. 284-305)

Diocletian turns up surprisingly often on Worst Emperor lists, and it is honestly appalling. Yes, he persecuted Christians, but there is more to being Bad for the Empire than killing Christians. Yes, his economic reforms were questionable (to put it mildly), but there was so little enforcement, it’s all a bit moot. Diocletian has no business being on Worst Emperor lists, for one simple reason. Namely, he saved the Empire after the fifty year crisis, and gave it another two centuries of existence. Despite his flaws, that earns him a place among the all-time greats.

**

So yes: my attempt to answer an unanswerable (and vaguely pop-historical) question. As I’ve said, it really depends on what criteria you are applying.