It would only be right of me to make a ranking of the Western Roman Emperors after I had already done one on the Roman Emperors. So here it is, hope you enjoy it.
@@Vini-zv3lr There’s no way he could get Spain without Gaul. And seeing as how Aegidius riled norther Gaul and he’d retaken much of the rest I think Gaul would certainly be secured. And without the betrayal he’d definitely of retaken Africa.
that's so sad that horrible emperor like honorius get to have a really long reign but excellent emperor like aurelian or majorian get betrayed because of their own success
a weak leader is easy to control. thats why strong and competent people like julius got killed. wasint because he was a "tyrant" and they wanted to keep the defunct republic. it was a power grab. and nobody knew what to do after he was killed. "now what"
Honestly I don't think Honorius is as bad as we think he is. Alot of his information is written by those who came after. I think honorious is better than valentinian...But thats because he had enough sense to atleast leave Stilihco alone for a while
@@natejones963 valentinian III is probably by far one of the worst emperor ( in comparison with honorius ) pretty much making only bad decision with his mother ( who was the real one who ruled) in particular killing aetius who just saved the empire from Atilla
Messenger: “Sire! Rome is lost!” Honorius: “OH NO! He was my favourite!” Messenger: “What shall w… wait what? “He”?” Honorius: “My dearest chicken, Rome! What will I do without him?!” Messenger: “… No, the CITY of Rome has fallen. Your chicken’s fine.” Honorius: “Oh, thank God!” The worst part is that I didn’t make that up. THAT’S why he’s at the bottom of this list. *Fuck this guy, for real.*
@@Outlaw8908 Ricimer also has to face all the flak from those Italian landowners whose investment in Majorian now sits at the bottom of Portus Illicitanus. If you want to blame anyone, maybe Gaisareiks would be better than Ricimer.
Majorian is such an interesting figure. Despite being preceded and succeeded by unlucky, incapable, or terrible emperors Majorian damn near turned it around. He proved to be a skilled commander, diplomat, and statesman in his short but active reign. IMO without being betrayed he would’ve retaken Africa, which could’ve guaranteed the empires survival due to the wealth and prestige gained from it. Also, tbf to Constantius III he did stabilize the empire in the aftermath of the first sack. He was able to put an end to the Visigoths rampage, made them an “ally” and set them loose on the other barabians. This weakened the barbarians and gave Rome time. He took a messy and dying empire and breathed a bit of life back into it. If he’d lived longer the civil war that followed would’ve been avoided and Africa wouldn’t have been lost so I think the collapse could’ve been avoided.
@@ari3903tbf, Gaul was only partially lost, the North held on and he left someone loyal and talented enough to hold it in his stead, so competant that he cut his ties to the Empire after the assassination of Majorian and if it wasnt for the fact that he was far from Rome and he only had one army thus leaving Gallia defenceless if he left, wouldve attempted to take Rome back ^^, he then died after retaking temporarly Lugdunum and preparing a counter offensive against the Visigoth
Aetius yes a based tragic hero, however I disagree with Stilicho, I have to be the only person alive who doesn’t like him. To shorten the details I think he’s overrated and a precursor to guys like Recimer, Aspar and eventually Odoacer Also I’m 70% sure most people on YT only know him from Dovahhatty
@Amirul Asyraf Zulkifli I never said I hated the Germans, I do like some like Theodoric and the Ostrogoths. I was saying that I don’t really like stilicho not because he’s half-German, but because how people seem to think he’s this amazing Roman hero mostly due to Doavhhatty. Plus Stilicho, Aspar and Recimer are in a complete different category from the other Germanic tribes and their leaders. They weren’t the heads of tribes didn’t act with any allegiance to the Germanic tribes, their only allegiance was their own self interests and power, not making new kingdoms for Germans.
@@byzantineboi8345 What was wrong with stilicho? And no, I don’t know home through Dova. I’ve know about him since I was a kid and watched Rome: Rise and fall of an empire. He was the one who kept Rome from falling to shit right away and did his damn best to deal with everything thrown his way. Sadly he got screwed over. If not for his eastern counterpart he would’ve killed Alaric and ended the Gothic threat. From there he could’ve handled the migrations far better than things went iotl.
Don’t forget Constantius III, he was only emperor for a few months but he’s the reason why Rome didn’t fall right after 410. If he didn’t die Rome could’ve recovered.
1:41 Honorius 2:52 Valentinian III 3:28 Petronius Maximus 4:04 Constantine III 4:33 Romulus Augustulus 5:01 Joannes 5:21 Avitus 5:49 Libius Severus 6:06 Olybrius 6:16 Glycerius 6:32 Julius Nepos 6:56 Anthemius 7:22 Constantius III 8:19 Majorian
Personally i would have it like this 14 - honorius 13 - petronius maximus (was advising valentinian iii) 12 - valentinian iii 11 - olybrius (vandal puppet who wanted to be a puppet) 10 - libius severus (wanted to be a puppet) 9 - constantine iii 8 - joannes 7 - avitus 6 - romulus agustulus (unrankable) 5 - constantius iii 4 - glycerius 3 - julius nepos 2 - anthemius 1 - majorian
Always found it funny how the very last western roman emperor to rule...was named after not just Romulus but also the 1st emperor Augustus , i think the irony is pretty clear 😅
The biggest lesson I've learnt in Roman history is to always bring with you a legion of near meatheaded loyal bodyguards, never leak your location, and always be wary of talented but disloyal people if you're the Emperor. Also, never trust your partner's, senate, rich politicians, independent officers. They always had the knife.
3:15 I’d say Honorius is worse; Valentinian, for all his incompetence, at least has the excuse of being emperor AFTER Honorius, so it wasn’t like he took a stable empire and destroyed it singlehandedly.
He even named one of them "Roma", when the announcement that Rome was sacked reached him, he thought it meant his chicken was killed, and when informed it was the city, he breathe a sigh of relief.
@@arkcliref I can't believe that reaction as other than a made-up tale to badmouth him, but well... he really did deserve to be badmouthed. And that story is damn funny xD
@@arkcliref "Harsh" depending on the basis used to judge him. As an emperor, a "princeps", the man who was put in charge, he was completely useless and untalented. But, contrary to the vast majority of useless untalented folks put in power who screwed things up, Nero was very aware of his lack of capabilities to rule so he let his staff rule for him. That can be considered a talent in his circumstances.
Constantius III was a badass general, he almost won back spain and he and Galla Placidia could have been a good match on the throne. His early death was a tragedy for the empire too.
Totally agreed. Had he lived, he might have been able to prevent the Vandal conquest of Africa, which IMO broke the back of the WRE and hammered the nail in the coffin.
Well idk about that. Galla Placidia was also another manipulative person behind people’s backs, her regency over her son Valentinian III proved to be a disaster.
Nepos is my favorite Western Emperor as at that point the empire was over but he didn't give up and even took back the Gallic Coast. even after the empire fell he kept fighting, both times being doomed not by his incompetence or anything like that, but by treachery.
Sadly, there’s not much to say about him. Given how vague 5th century sources are, everything remotely interesting about him could be said in under 5 minutes, tops.
Of these, Glycerius is actually my second favorite. Before and after him, the empire was actively and quickly shrinking. In his reign, he was at least able to just about preserve what he had. The standards are obviously sky high here.
Flavius Constantius ruled the West between 411-421 (until 420 under Honorius) and he was greatly successful in sorting things out in Spain. When he died the empire was in much better shape than it had been 10 years before, when it was basically a mess. Not only did he regain control of Italy after sending out the Goths, he also found an agreement with them placing them as federati (allies) in Aquitania and then used them to crush the Vandals, Alans and Suebes in Spain. He wasn’t just a good general, he was a great ruler
The same move ( placing goths in Bordeaux ) had saved the Romans during the battle of the catalunian plains. Attila invaded Italy despite the draw/victory or whatever the fuck that was, so I don't think it's as essential, but still prestigious nevertheless.
Here are all my rankings of the Western Roman Emperors: 1. Honorius *0/100 2. Constantine III 24/100 3. Constantius III *85/100^ 4. Joannes *68/100 5. Valentinian III *4/100 6. Petronius Maximus 3/100 (His achievement: Lame Jokes.) 7.Avitus *45/100 8. Majorian *96/100 9. Libius Severus (Unrankable because he was a puppet) 10. Anthemius *83/100 11. Olyberius (Totally unrankable) 12. Glycerius *69/100 13. Julius Nepos *75/100 14. Romulus Augustus (Totally unrankable, just a child. You can't simply hostile to him as Hostilian.) ^Constantius III brought some stability to the empire, but he didn't do much. So, he was Claudius II Gothicus 2.0.
@@chaospacemarine8330 Maybe. Because he murdered last two chad emperors in the Western Roman Empire? It was no doubt that he was acted like the Praetorian Guards in the 3rd Century, which were king-makers in Rome ( Thanks Constantine the Great disbanded them for the stability of empire), though Richimer had defended the borders by fought against the Germanic tribes. But yeah, he was horrible, and this was one of the reasons why WRE ultimately collapsed. He was actually a Mamai ( King-maker of Golden Horde)-like figure.
Just saying valentinian should be worse than honorius. Honorius may have been mentally handicapped. not only this but he did something right to have lived as long as he did. Majorian and constantius III were the two people besides Aetius who could have brought the empire some stability to live another half a century or longer.
I do agree that Honorius and Valentinian III. were absolutely the worst, but when you also bring the eastern Roman emperors, I'd say one, one emperor is worse than both Phocas the usurper (Also the whole Angeloi dynasty was terrible)
@@marvelfannumber1 he was Worse than Honorius, he killed one of the greatest emperors until Basil II, Maurice and his sons, he then killed the few people that held some power, he didn't even care about, you know - THE WHOLE PERSIAN ARMY, and decided to attack Heraclius instead, if it weren't for Heraclius and his generals, The Eastern Roman Empire would have ended much sooner As for the Angeloi, I guess that could be said
@@chiefmasterofdeepwarrens3208 All those decisions are perfectly rational though. If you're a usurper, you'd want to kill off more legitimate claimants to prevent civil war. Constantine did the same thing to Licinius for instance. Also, in regards to the Persians. The Persians didn't actually start making major gains until *after* Heraclius took over. Under Phocas the Persians took Antioch, but it was under Heraclius that the Persians took all of Syria and Egypt. Which may have had something to do with the Roman army being weakened from infighting partially due to Heraclius' little civil war. Also, calling Maurice "one of the best Emperors until Basil II" is quite the stretch. He was alright, but he made a bunch of poor decisions which led to his downfall, and he really should have seen that coming.
@@marvelfannumber1 they didn't take Antioch until Heraclius reign. He (Heraclius) was actually defeated trying to defend the city. The persians were mostly contained to the Euphrates before Heraclius rebelled.
It's a tragedy that Honorius' sister Galla Placidia was unable to rule in her own right. For the good of the Empire she married two men who were uncongenial to her. She succeeded in ensuring the succession of her son Valentinian III the last Flavian emperor (she can't be blamed for his failure as emperor) and re-establishing good relations with Constantinople.
@@connorgolden4 'And on 1 January 417 the emperor "took her by the hand and gave her to Constantius", his favoured general, thus solemnizing their marriage. Olympiodoros records that this was done against her will' from Ravenna by Judith Herrin, page 33, published 2020. Judith Herrin is a leading British academic specialising in Late Antiquity and Byzantium. In a footnote she cites fragment 33 of Olympiodoros. Olympiodoros of Thebes was a contemporary who wrote a history of the years 407-425, dedicated to Theodosius II. Flavian was a slip of the thumb.
Petronius Maximus managed to kill Aetius, kill Valentinian III, immediately piss off the Vandals for no reason, fail to flee the sack he caused as a result while getting murdered by a mob in the processes. In terms of the sheer level of ineptitude in such a short space of time, I think he was the worst emperor. How anyone could do so much damage in 2 and a half months is almost inconceivable.
@@floridaball4896 sorry bro but the reason Majorian gained power was because of Ricimer they both combined their strength to consolidate da power. I hope Ricimer die after he helped Majorian gain power tho.
It's crazy coming back to this video and seeing how back in the day, roughly around the time when I first found Spectrum, 1.4k was a lot of view. I'm so glad he's found a lot of success on RU-vid.
Honestly, other than the no.1, Majorian (and even then, it's arguable, as Majorian was a great general, but we know practically nothing else about him), both Odoacer and especially Theodoric governed Italy far, far better than any of the Western Roman Emperors... so much so, that it's not even close. The Italian people probably breathed a sigh of relief when the pretence of Empire was finally over.
It's curios that the Roman Emperors wanted to avoid as much as posible to being called as Kings and act as them, but once the real kings arrived (Odoacre), was for better. Maybe, one of the thing that doomed the Empire was that they didn't choose for something clear, they wanted to reign ( "first citizen" or "who give orders"), but they didn't wanted to become/being called kings with all what represents, and for this they failed to pretend not being what they were. But well, they are so many pieces responsibles of the fall, that it's better to ask, Why didn't fall earlier?
I think the reason Italy was stable after the Empire was because the Germanic rulers were actually able to foster decent long-term relations with the Roman citizens.
I would make Honorious second. Why? Because: 1.Valentinian II. ruled longer 2. He left Britania. That Island was more trouble than it was worth. Yeah, by that point, you can call it meanlingless (which, pretty much was.) but still...
But the "Western Roman Empire" _wasn't a political entity._ It was an administrative region created by Diocletian, and it wasn't the only one. The empire was also split into 4 Praetorian Prefectures, which were split into 12 Diocese (later 15), which were split into about a hundred provinces, not including the Senatorial provinces(Italian provinces, Africa Proconsularis, Achaea Proconsularis, and Asia Proconsularis). There was no further separation in 395, no law creating a separation, no imperial edict, etc. There were western and eastern emperors throughout the 4th century also, and when an emperor occasionally governed both halves, he literally governed both halves, so Constantine, Constantius II, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I, and Theodosius I were at times Emperor of the west and emperor of the east at the same time. And they usually elected a co-emperor as soon as they could to govern both halves effectively. Both east and west shared resources, shared armies, shared navies, shared bureaucrats and other government officials, shared clergy, and so on throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, and even after the overthrow of Orestes and Romulus Augustus. Coins in the west depicted emperors from the east and coins in the east depicted emperors from the west, and coins from both often depicted both emperors. This continued after the last western emperor. The Visigoths in Spain and Gaul, Odoacer in Italy, later Theodoric in Italy and Pannonia, and the Franks in Gaul all minted coins of Zeno, Anastasius, Justin I, and Justinian I as if the western half of the empire was still alive and well. In 489, the Bishop of Rome deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople. Both the Senate at Rome and Constantinople continued to each elect a consul for each year, because it was one Senate based out of two cities. There was never 2 empires. And as you look into it deeper, there were never even 2 "de facto" empires. There were simply 2-4 emperors at any given time. The last major joint expedition was around 470 when Leo installed Anthemius as western Augustus, and the 2 tried to reconquer North Africa. Anthemius, one of the very last western emperors, and the last one recognized by the armies, the Senate, and Leo, had his main Comitatensis field army manned with both western and eastern Legions. Likewise, when Majorian set out to reconquer North Africa a decade or so earlier, he used soldiers from the west and east, and his campaign was funded by west and east. Similarly, Theodosius II(an eastern emperor) attempted to retake Africa about 2 decades before Majorian, and the invasion force was made up of western and eastern soldiers and sailors.
Honorious I and Valentillian III were bad, however Phocas, Andronikus III, and the Angeloi were all worse. I mean the fact that there were successor states following the 4th crusade is amazing, that Nicea pulled anything back together is undescribable. Alexios III and Phocas have so much in common they are nearly the same person.
Romulus Augustulus was not a bad ruler. The real reason why he was ultimately the last Roman Emperor was because it fell into his lap. Julius Nepos should have known better than to place a fifteen-year-old boy on the throne of the Western Empire. It wasn't Romulus Augustulus' fault that he was a puppet. Julius Nepos wasn't even in Rome when he was deposed by Odoacer. He was the Bishop of Ravenna, but he only lasted for four years before the invaders killed him.
Majorian. Aurelian had time to save the empire. He died after saving it. Majorian was killed before he had the time to save it. If he had more time, he may well have succeeded. Also, saving Majorian probably means killing Ricimer. It would be worth it even if Majorian got struck by lightning and died the very next day.
@@Bardockfan150 honestly I really agree with this. I’m a big fan of both and I think Majorian’s story is the classic tragic betrayal of the good guy that we see every now and then. With how successful he was it’d be interesting to see what Majorian could have accomplished had Ricimer not been in the picture and he had more time
Here's another question. What if majorian existed during the crisis of the third century and aurelian existed near the end of the western roman empire's life?
to be fair valentinian III. had atleast some legit reason for killing aetius. aetius had been openly hostile towards the imperial family in the past and it’s not completely unreasonable to assume that a usurpation might be caused by him.
It really doesn't matter where abouts you put everyone else on this list; So long as Honorius is stone-dead last, and Majorian stands proudly on the winning podium.
Majorian was such a baddass Aegitius, the father of Syagrius and ruler of the domain of Soissons, who was a man loyal to Majorian and was the master of the troops in Gaul, or at least what was left of it, upon his death looked at Ricimer and his puppet emperor decided "f*** that the only emperor worthy of my loyalty would be the eastern one" And singlehandedly with his own forces bolstered by some frankish mercenaries pushed back both the Wisigoth and the Burgunds from advancing further into Gallia and even reconquered Lugdunum at one point from the Burgunds in other word starting to reconquer parts of the province, meanwhile the sources werent clear but he may or may not have threatened Ricimer that he would invade Italy, which he never did unfortunately because Gallia would then be empty, and he even died like Majorian most likely assassinated after a new great military victory. So even after his death Majorian still did something good for Rome
@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 That's what a dirty, stinky plebe would think. Justinian was a man with a vision. He wanted to revive the Roman Empire, take back what Barabarians robbed and destroyed. And he did his best, reconquering not only Italy, but also Africa and part of Spain. He brought justice to Visigoths and Vandals, for sacking and destroying Rome. If not for the plague and other factors, who knows, maybe he would rule Roman Empire in it's whole glory again. Not only that, he compiled all the different laws of the Empire, creating Corpus Iuris Civilis, on which many current day legal codes are based on. No matter the circumstances, he never gave up. And those "his people", how you call them were nothing but rebelious, ungrateful rabble goaded by worthless beauroucrats and traitors to depose and maybe even kill Justinian. The Nika rebellion destroyed half of Constantinopole, and guess who have rebuilt it in style? No other than Justinian the Great. He also built Hagia Sophia, a true jewel and masterpiece of byzantine architecture, not to mention other public buildings. Next time use other sources than Procopius, or at least read both of his chronicles.
How about the emperor Julian -great grandson of Constantine I think he was who renounced Christianity and tried to bring the old gods back? What would have happened had he succeeded and not been killed in the war against the Persians?
He’s overrated. A good commander. Good administrator from what I recall. Probably highly educated. But his religious policy was dog shit and was gonna get him killed or start a war eventually. Christianity was not gonna fail and paganism just didn’t have what was needed to resist it. Fighting this was dumb.
I was initially confused when you named Honorius as being worse than other Roman Emperors until you noted he lasted 30 years. I was like "So someone like Caligula or Commodus for 30 years ? Yikes. I agree"
Wait a minute... the Western Empire only lasted 80 years, had only 14 emperors... and the first two this video mentions took up 60 YEARS?!?!? How unstable was this thing?
I would personally put Valentinian III lower than Honorius by virtue of the fact that, where Honorius ordered the death of Stilicho, Valentinian III actually murdered Aetius himself like a total lunatic. I dunno. Maybe it's better to look him in the eyes and do it yourself rather than have someone else do it. Depends on your perspective I guess.
@@causantinthescot doesn't that diminish aurelian's achievement? If gallienus would have done it, that means it wasn't his fault that it didn't happen earlier. You're kinda implying that anyone could have done that and the preparation from gallienus was the key. I think aurelian's string of victories is something really special and thinking about if gallienus or Claudius could have done the same is like fanfiction because they weren't able to do it. Even Aurelian was close to defeat
really similar figures and reign. majorian was probably the most talented emperor overall, but gallienus was the better one cause of his longer reign imo
Majorian was the Junior Aurelian. Had all the potential to be a "Restitutor Occidentis", being a bold reformer, excellent general, and visionary. Too bad his friend Ricimer betrayed him (once a g*rm, always a g*rm, unless you're Stillicho).
Honestly you may as well just throw Ricimer up on this list somewhere I’d probably put him in third, because he didn’t really seem to have have the empire’s interests at heart as much as maybe he should have
He was a child at the time, controlled by his father. Romulus wasn't able to win a war. Also he doesn't had much interest in ruling, because Odoacer hadn't killed him, he just lived somewhere in Italy an unremarkable live. And even after Theodosian took over Italy he wasn't killed. Noone ever feared him, because he had absolutely no intention to rule.
@@imperatorsverige1806 And what if Romulus was older at the time and wanted to save the Western territories of Rome and sucesufly defeated Odeacer do you tink that he could be a kind of Aurelian by stabalizing the Empire in Italy and perhaps help Nepos and the other guy in Gaul?
@@ostrio No I don't think so, the army consisted almost only of barbarians and even before he was made Emperor, some Germanic Warlord fought for him against Odoacer, also the Empire consisted at this point only of mainland Italy, which wasn't very much. The Empire at this point was already gone and even the senate supported Odoacer.
@Magister militum No I do not get my news from CNN mister Fox News fan. I am however in possession of a working brain and basic human decency. Wich is why my opposition to a president never relied on something as brain dead the slogan "let's go Brandon"
I will speak out in defense of Constantine III. In my opinion, you were too harsh and critical on him. The guy rebelled LITERALLY during the WORST PERIOD OF ROME'S EXISTENCE. When the imbecile Honorius sat on the throne. By the way, it was during this crisis that Stilicho would be killed (by the way, let’s not forget that with all his talents, the man suffered from the same illness as other commanders of that era, dreaming of stabbing his patron in the back) He quickly, confidently and almost bloodlessly captures Gaul, and then conducts a brilliant campaign in Spain. Keeps the barbarians on the Rhine border. And if not for the betrayal of our commanders, we could have received in 409-410 a much more competent (at least in military terms) emperor, a capable to defeat Alaric. In my opinion, this fact alone makes Constantine one of the best emperors. Because he had the same potential as Majorian, but if we attribute to the second the opportunity to save the empire (which he did not save), then why not do the same for Constantine? In the end, he even established good governance in Gaul and Spain. Yes, he abandoned the people of Britain and Armorica. But this was a necessary measure.
