With the exception of Aurelian or Diocletian, I forgot which one, who fixed inflation by switching to the aureus, a gold coin that would remain stable during much of the early Middle Ages. The chad Gold Standard vs the virgin fiat currency.
@@Duke_of_Lorraine it was Constantine with the introduction of the solidus. The aureus is the gold coin that was replaced. Unfortunately he didn’t do anything for the debasement of silver coinage so it really didn’t correct any underlying problems.
Domitian is my favorite Roman emperor. My 7th grade history teacher said, and I quote “That’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time.” His was Marcus Aurelius. Big surprise.
Gallienus played arguably one of the cruelest games of Whac-a-Mole in history: he deals with threats up in the West, then they pop up in the East, during the time I'd honestly argue that Rome was at its absolute worst. It's a testament to his ability that he lasted for fifteen years, during a fifty year period with more than twenty emperors (or claimants).
The efforts of him, Claudius, Auralien and Probus all got retconned by the tetrarchs and no one had any way to verify so they got a bunch of credit for what those four did over 30 years. They held down the empire at the most vulnerable it had been since the end of the Second Punic War.
You absolute chadlad. Tiberius, Galienus AND Domitian. 100%. I have always attempted to challenge the narrative of these champs. Though they ruled in very different times, it is apparent that whatever flaws they had are massively eclipsed by their strengths. Roman history is riddled with character assassination that far too many historians accept without question. Great to see you put it on video. Cheers
@@Caesar_Himself his point contains a grain of truth: they were simply closer to events. Propinquity to events often does the heavy lifting. Take the world’s best historian today vs. Arrian on Alexander the Great. Arrian had access to Ptolemy’s account and others. Simple nearness to events, even if centuries later, makes them weightier- even if Senators don’t like certain Emperors. Imagine only the negative sources on Augustus survived. You’d still get a lot of truth about the man: his sexual hypocrisy, his ambition, his dependence on Caesar’s name, his dependence on Agrippa, his early ruthlessness. Shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater and assume the negative sources have 0 value because they’re agenda-driven.
Aurelian: *Spares the Life of Zenobia after defeating her* Romans: "Why did you let her live?" Aurelian: "You see, I think it was necessary to do it in order to end all this spiral of violence that has devastated the Empire for the last decades. Rome was built, not only with blood, but with wisdom and morality too, even though it seems that the whole world only remembers the blood. As long as there exists only violence, there will only be chaos and lack of control everywhere. Perhaps sparing my enemy's life won't change anything, but what right would I have to call myself emperor if I only thought with my fist and not with my mind? Did Augustus, Marcus Aurelius and many others become gods just with their thirst for blood? I may have started my career as a very bellicose person, but these last few years have completely changed my life. And if I can change, then everybody can change..." Romans: "You just did it to bang her, right?" Aurelian: "Yep"
Glad that the Crisis of 3rd Century boys like Gallienus and Aurelian getting some proper overdue recognition... being handed the empire at that time was definitely like playing the game in Deity mode when compared to emperors like Antoninus Pius and Hadrian who had a strong and stable empire to manage from the beginning
@@FazeParticles seriously though his letter to the Persians "hey don't do that or I might do something about it" and then they stopped, while possibly not true is some serious based Chad energy
Hadrian wasn't exactly playing on easy mode since the Senate basically hated him and were possibly plotting to kill him for years but couldn't figure out how, since he was on the road and upgrading the empires defenses non stop
Speaking of Uncle Claudius, I’m surprised he isn’t on this list. While that the general consensus is no longer that he is a bumbling fool, I still don’t think the Uncle Claudius gets the love and recognition he truly deserves.
One thing to consider about Tiberius as well is that Augustus really did not want Tiberius as his heir, he really wanted Germanicus or one of his blood relatives. So considering that he spend his whole life being the backup, I'd say he did pretty well.
Appreciate the shoutouts to my boy, Constantius II. Dude worked insanely hard, must say. For someone who is regarded as being short tempered, he didn't show it much in his policy. He actually didn't start any civil wars, but only reacted to uprisings that happened around him. And when he did have to mobilize against Magnentius and later Julian, Constantius made sure that he could negotiate a ceasefire with the battle against the Sassanids and in the case of Magnentius he even let him retreat after fighting in Pannonia because he focused on ensuring the Rhine region was secure before following. And he was willing to swallow his pride when it came to Julian. I don't really think that Constantius was conspiring against Julian (he exiled Marcellus) but I do think that he wasn't really fond of the boy, so being able to recognize that a power vacuum was the last thing that the empire needed and Julian was the most competent guy around he was able to abdicate.
The late Crisis of the Third Century had A LOT of OP people running around at once.. You have Gallienus, Aurelian , Claudius Gothicus , Constancius I , Diocletian , Valerian , and more all alive at the same time ... and most served in the cav together. Talk about a time of giants... without these amazing people all being alive at the same time and all their hard work they each put in.. its likely Rome wouldnt have survived.
There were just as many people like Maximinus Thrax, Constantine the second, Trembonialus Gallus, and 3 million usurpers. I apologize for the butchered spelling.
These heroes of Rome were admirable. However, I think it shows the state Rome was in. From the Severan dynasty onward (Severus and Caracalla contributed greatly to the Crisis of the Third Century), the Empire required heroes just to survive for any prolonged period of time. As Tominus Maximus said, in its late period, almost no one saw Rome as worth saving.
Glad to see Gallienus heading this list. One more of his accomplishments was acting as a patron to Plotinus, the founder of the philosophical school of Neoplatonism, which had a profound intellectual impact on late antiquity, both pagan and Christian thinkers.
I would've had a stroke if Gallienus wasn't number one. Easily the most punished emperor in history. This man inspires the same absolute respect and admiration that Constantine XI does.
I'd say do an Overrated Emperors video next... and I can list a few who would go on it.... One, Septimius Severus... killed the one man who could have been a perfect co-emperor with him and continued the Pax Romana... but no, try assassinating him, fail, and then pursue him with an army to defeat him, only then to tax the roman people and devalue the empire's currency to pay for your sons to be co-emperors, one of whom would be one of the worst tyrants the empire had... Another is Diocletian... his position is unique because while he did many great things to stabilize to Empire during his twenty years in power, quite a few of his reforms failed, and many that did succeed, were placed right next to a line in the sand, and when he stepped down, they fell apart pretty fast.... Not to mention quite a bit what he and Maximian, are credited for... really came from the good barracks emeprors during the crises of the third century, Gallienus, Probus, Claudius Gothicus, and Aurelian, and maybe the crises would have ended sooner, had their reigns been longer and their armies not suddenly deciding to kill each of them... ( except Gothicus, he died of plague )
I agree with all of these, another person I would add to this list is Nero. He was actually very popular with the common people during his reign. And he wasn’t in Rome when it burned.
Nero definitely wasn't a bad Emperor. He was just incapable. It didn't matter at first, because Seneca, Agrippina, and Burrus were keeping him in check. Without them, he had no hope of maintaining power.
Septimius Severus, Justinian I, and Domitian comes to mind. Romaboos only really love Domitian in particular only because he fixed the coin system. His military failures in the dacian wars was pretty horrible.
Diocletian BY FAR. Although he ruled the tetrarchy and brought stability to the economy, he slaughtered Roman citizens, including children, due to their religion on such a scale it lead to a noticeable decline and future disloyalty, forcing people to keep the jobs of their parents, and the fact his tetrarchy ultimately failed the moment he resigned, and became exactly what he tried to avoid in the first place: A Christian dominated nation ruled by a single man who brought back succession by blood. Plus there's belief he organized the deaths of some emperors, including Carus. Dude was straight up power hungry and had the perfect alibi to look like everything was under control...by being the only guy who knew how the system worked. Just look at Constantine's version of the Tetrarchy. It was just a worse version.
Great list! If you ever make a list of overrated emperors, I would have some suggestions. Nerva (because of the “five good emperors) Septimius Severus (praised for ending civil wars that he started, initiated lots of trends that weakened the empire in the long run, like debasement and overpaying the army) Julian the Apostate (started a war with Persia to gain legitimacy and died, leaving the empire in a weaker position) Theodosius the Great (his solution for the goths led to many problems for the empire and destroyed many western armies, leaving both half’s of the empire in a weakened position at the star of the V century)
I definitely agree with Domitian and Galienus being the two most underrated emperors, great list!! The only thing that I would change is I would probably add Julian the apostate somewhere on the list, and would probably even add Antoninus Pius as well
A good list..glad to see constantius ii here..a cold blooded bastard but conmpetent who knew what his duties were. Domitian was the best. Given nothing to start he did everything well . I always thought gallienus got the worst hand dealt to him. No matter how tirelessly he seems to have worked he suffered one trsgedy after another and one overwhelming problem after another.
@@randomguy6152 well after Caesar or Aurelian the empire didn't fall and it Majorian's preparations to invade Africa weren't sabotaged it would have been impressive comeback for the western empire
Caesar's death and the subsequent death of the """""Liberators""""" gave the death blow to the Republic. Granted, it was already dying after Gaius Marius' military reforms.
Galienus' spot at number one is absolutely deserVed. Reading about all the shit he had to deal with as Emperor and seeing him come on top of it all and nearly bring the Gallic Empire back into the fold was a wild ride. Rome would've ended had it been under a lesser man at the time.
Wholeheartedly agree with the top 2 placements. Would love to see a list of overrated emperors. I can think of several names that belong there like Theodosius, Septimius Severus, and especially Justinian
Justinian isn't overrated, he largely got fucked over by the Justinian Plague. Which was the black death. Not like Europe handled that well centuries later.
At this point Aurelian is a bit overhyped. dont get me wrong, he was cool and I would rank him in top 10 emperrors, but he isnt underrated by anyone. Also he basically profited from the Gallienic reforms and Claudius Gothiccus success. At this point, Probus and Carus, who succeeded him are way more underrated, even tough they were also pretty successful
1. Theodosius I 2. Valentinian I 3. Gallienus 4. Domitian 5. Septimus Severus 6. Constans I 7. Valens 8. Tiberius I 9. Constantius II 10. Severus Alexander My Top 10 underrated emperors.
No Majorian? He was like the last hurrah of Rome. The incarnation of what was and never again to be. He could not save Rome but his efforts were truly commendable. Perhaps it's a bit of romanticizing yet it does feel like that when you understand his situation. He's in this video yet I see almost no comments on him.
If Silbannacus was really Roman emperor and Ulpia Severina was really Roman empress, then they are the most underrated by far, since almost no one even knows they exist
If this was a Byzantine list, my top three would be Heraclius, Justin I, and Constantine XI (not necessarily in that order), with heavy honorable mentions to Maurice, Zeno, and Theodore I.
I agree with your list, altough I am sorely missing Julian and Galerius. Mostly the former.. Julian was Marcus Aurelius reborn and with his death the last candle for the hope of another glorious period of Rome was extinguished.
Julian is overrated. He didn't rule for long, and his attempts to bring back paganism did more harm than good. Not to mention his glory seeking attempt to take Mesopotamia ended in the deaths of many Roman soldiers. He really wanted to be Trajan, but he was more so Marc Anthony.
He would have defeated the Goths in the Battle of Naissus, and eventually defeat the Gallic Empire (because he almost did once before getting wounded). Maybe not as great as Aurelian, but certainly a viable replacement.
@@aaronTGP_3756 recent histography indicate that it is more likely than gallineus was the one leading the Romans at the battle of naissus not claudius gothicus
@@purplen33t17 I was just going from the orthodox consensus. But I personally agree: Gallienus definitely won. Now for headcanon: Claudius II, a minor officer had Gallienus assassinated. He proved his military worth by winning the Battle of Lake Benacus, but showed incompetence when the city of Autun defected to him, but he refused to help. This soured relations with Zenobia. So he sent someone to subdue her. This man failed and Zenobia decided to abandon her loyalty to Rome. Meanwhile, Claudius was busy trying to fight the defenseless Goths in the Thracian mountains (probably wanting an easy victory). Only due to Postumus getting killed for refusing to sack Mainz and the subsequent turmoil in Gaul, Spain defected to Rome and Placidianus was able to subdue the Rhone Valley. His general Aurelian was planning a conspiracy, but they got lucky and Claudius died of plague. Aurelian was proclaimed Emperor by the army, while Claudius' brother Quintillus gained allies in Rome. When things had cooled down under Diocletian, he successfully eliminated most memory of the late crisis emperors, especially for gallienus and aurelian. Decades later, Claudius' relative Constantine used the limited knowledge to their advantage, using propaganda to make Claudius II a hero and conqueror of the Goths, and attributed his misdeeds to Gallienus, and Gallienus' great victory to Claudius II. Is this mostly made up? Essentially yes, but I guess I just really hate Claudius II, who is overrated. He was really just another 3rd century Emperor: a half-decent general who had a short reign.
Anyone here who watched The Caesars tv series (1968)? Their portrayal of Tiberius was way better than the I,Claudius version of treason trial and indulging in perversion along with his quarrel against Agrippina the Elder.
Uh, Maxentius was not "the last Roman Emperor to reside in Rome"... Where did you get that from? I mean, for one, Constantine resided in Rome immediately after him. Even the later Western Roman Emperors like Valentinian III, Libius Severus and Anthemius all resided in Rome.
Here's an idea for a video, what would you have done to save the empire at a certain point in its history. In other words what went wrong and made it inevitable
Majorian was not the greatest emperor. But he sure wasn't one who went out without commendation. Any who recognize the name might think he was naïve or a bad statesman. But at the time he was implementing reforms any other competent emperor would have done. The problem was the attitude of the senate. Back in the days of old it was to give up yourself for Rome, but in the days of Majorian it was give Rome for yourself. Majorian fought as the breathing embodiment of the roman spirit. He would not allow Rome to fall in the same sense the senate would not bow to Hannibal nor would Aurelian allow the empire to fracture. Majorian reigned as long as he won battles. But once his fleet gone so was he. Could he have saved Rome? No, it was beyond saving. Could he have extended it? Absolutely, he had already done so for the 20 years it continued, if he succeded, why not 50?
"Manu ad ferrum" Imperator Caesar Lucius Domitius Aurelianus Gothicus Germanicus Parthicus Augustus "Restitutor Orbis" english translation: "Hand on hilt" Emperor Caesar Lucian Domitian Aurelian Gothicus Germanicus Parthicus Augustus ",Restorer of the World" will never be forgotten he my favorite emperor ever and is the only man besides for constantine to manage to rule with 1 emperor, 1 empire, and 1 god
My List 10. Carus 9. Quintillus 8. Titus 7. Lucius Verus 6. Tiberius 5. Carus 4. Majorian 3. Nero 2. Constantius Chlorus 1. Domitian PS- I thought that Constantius Chlorus ruled from 305-306. Are we thinking of different people?
I had expected Nero to be present. He gets a lot more hate than is warranted from people who wrote the histories, and had their own contentious bones to pick with him. Killing his own mother certainly sounds bad, but moms in imperial Rome had a tendency to be dangerous schemers who sought control and power, and destabalized the whole empire. Nero's was a prime example. His persecution of christians was rough, but neither was it uncommon for even good emperors to do so, nor was he the first to do it. He overall strikes me as a fairly gregarious and cultured fellow, who kept things relatively stable and peaceful for a while. Not a very good emperor, but certainly not the villain he's remembered as.
I would say that Aurealian is not underrated anymore, actually he's probably overrated now. Other than that great list, some of the Emperors here have bad reputations but they were actually great
Valentinian I: You forgot me and I am the most underrated emperor, even my brother Valens and Severus Alexander are amateurs. Oh yes, I have just torn Lupicinus and Maximius into pieces.
I'm sick from Aurelian being constantly claimed to be underrated while he is actually very popular among people interested in Roman history while Probus is ACTUALLY UDERRATED Emperor which some Romans themselves considered better than Aurelian.
Septimius Severus? Nobody knows him, but he was the first roman emperor that started a real dynasty and the only one that conquered Scotland and Iraq. One could make the argument that his empire was even bigger than Hadrian's. I don't understand why Diocletian is seen as a good emperor. For me, he ended my beloved Rome by turning citizenship into serfdom.
I am more impressed with alexander severus personally, even though his rule was short he was kinda decent in a time where the empire was going downhill fast
Aurelian should be number 1 on this list regardless of whether or not he could've reigned for longer. It took Aurelian just 5 years to achieve what most emperors would take years to do. So why he's not number 1 is a mystery to me. But regardless great video!
Well done, I did it too! One can't accept western emperors and simultaneously reject eastern emperors. If he wanted to be neutral, he would have listed all emperors pre-395.
I personally feel like Tiberius did not deserve to be here, because he both allowed himself to become a puppet of his Praetorian Prefect (Sejanus), and towards the end of his reign he essentially became a shut-in on the Island of Capri, “governing” the Empire via dispatches to agents in Rome. This is not to say that he was a “bad” Princeps, simply that he was not necessary a “good” one.
Underrated is a very relative term. Tiberius has been famously fucked over hard by Tacitus to the point many still think of him as an actual Tyrant because of that. In that sense he is quite underrated even in spite of his obvious faults.
