Every Roman emperor (up to 476) ranked in a tier list. I made a video like this three years ago, but it wasn't good so I decided to remake it. Music Used • Mario Kart No Copyrigh... Sources
calling Anthemius "just a puppet" is kinda sad, he tried to retake africa, rebuilt Rome (again) and sent his son to fight the Visigoths (failure). he was quite active at least give him a D tier for his effort
I agree with pretty much every single thing, each time you scrolled down to the next emperor and I was mentally deciding where I would put him it's like you could read my mind. The only one where I would disagree is Septimius Severus. I do understand how bad his economic policy would turn out to be in the long run by starting the whole raising the soldier's pay thing (which hadn't been done since Domitian as far as I remember) and devaluating the coins like crazy along the way, but at the given moment it may have been the way to go. Hear me out. It's important to remember that his reign started after 1) the mini-crisis during Marcus Aurelius' reign with wars, plagues and all 2) Commodus' reign which didn't exactly improve the economic situation and most importantly 3) having to fight 2 consecutive civil wars, one of which featured for example what is said to have been the biggest legion versus legion battle in all of Rome's history in Lugdunum 197, just to give an idea of their scale. Securing the army's loyalty in such a period was vital and one could argue that if raising their pay would just result in delaying the problem (as a civil war would inexorably come the day when somebody would be unable to keep up with the expense), it's still better than not doing anything and risking a new civil war right now. His military campaigns, while maybe nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion weren't always unjustified nor did they do any major damage to the empire. His campaign against the Parthians in 197-198 was instrumental in providing cohesion in his newly unified army after he'd just won the war against Clodius Albinus, all these guys had spent the last couple of years fighting each other so they really needed a nice moment of fighting and looting together to forget all of that, and maybe make more difficult a future usurpation. Not to mention the propaganda value, calling himself Parthicus Maximus and all of that, that's exactly the kind of street credibility that was needed in order to consolidate his power, being himself an usurpator in the first place. And all of that did gain Rome 2 new provinces in the East so you know, there's that. Then he conquered a bunch of desert in Africa, whatever, litterally why not, and his final trip to Scotland was kinda just for fun but nothing too bad happened there, the Picts refused battle and the Romans just went home. All these factors allowed him to preside over a 18-year period of stability, which was not a given after what just happened before, if things had gone a bit differently we might have been talking about a third century crisis starting in 193. For that alone I think he deserves a fair amount of credit, as well as for managing to establish a new dynasty which could have maintained the stability (it's not his fault if his successors all sucked...). I'm not saying he was a great emperor by any means, I'm just arguing that him raising the soldier's pay and devaluating the coin was more a necessity of the times than his personal fantasy, and that it's a bit unfair to blame him so much for doing what he can to maintain himself in power (otherwise you could also argue for example that any emperor faced with an usurpation should have just abdicated to avoid a civil war, that would sure have been for the empire's greatest good). All in all I see a lot of parallels between him and Theodosius : both started their reign in difficult conditions and reigned for a similar amount of time, both fought 2 bloody civil wars which contributed to deplete the empire's manpower, both did some things which would prove terrible in the long run but at the time were arguably the only possible choice (raising soldier's pay and letting the Goths settle in the empire), both gave us shitty dynasties, but both were competent generals and rulers who managed to keep the empire together at least during their lifespan, and as the periods after their death would show you only realize how precious what you had was once it's gone. You gave Theodosius a B which I agree with, so it's only fair my boy Septimius gets a B as well.
Couldnt have agreed more. Septimus Severus was a very solid emperor. Even his raising soldiers pay wouldnt have been that bad in isolation, its really caracalla that took the soldiers pay to a whole nother level beyond anything his father did. The only fault I'd give to Septimus Severus is not being active in the administration of the empire and delegating it to his cousin who he made preatorian prefect, who was notoriously corrupt. Caracalla doesn't deserve a D, he honestly dsserves to be sitting with Commodus and Caligula, and Elagabalus should be in the F tier with them too. Alexander Severus while a young man that showed a lot of peomise, needs to be lower. Him being under the control of his mother, and the failures of rhe parthian campaign and the way he royally pissed off the entire army with his dealings of the germans which got him killed should put him in the D category. If he had lived longer and escaped his mothers clutches, he may well have been in the higher tiers with the greats, but he was a victim of circumstance.
after he said that Tiberius is a C-tier emperor I immediately stopped watching. I personally think that Tiberius is an A-tier emperor and he should be at least a B-tier
@@anarrivingwingedhussar9692that was an exageration by Suetonius, although I would say he was one of the most depraved emperors, but he was also an efficient administrator.
@@TaeSunWoomaybe its just a way to not make the video too long, but i would consider it disrespectful if he doesnt consider "byzantine empire" as the roman empire.
I think I would have shoveled Elagabalus into the "irrelevant" category. Sexually unconventional? No doubt. He was a teenager pushed into the job by a scheming mother and grandmother, and was in way over his head. So he was weird, but not particularly bloody or malicious, and the empire hummed along during his reign pretty much indifferent to his antics. On the other hand, you put Honorius and Valentinian III right where they belong: bottom of the barrel. Two of Rome's lousiest emperors who each reigned 30 years - and frittered every single year away while the Empire slipped down the drain.
lets be honest, Elagabalus is probably the most relatable Roman Emperor for most zoomers, lgbt or not. also, if they really can be considered a trans woman, its nice to not only have claim to fame, but also to have had a woman roman emperor who wasn't a like, totally ruthless backstabber type like the Byzantine Empresses lol
I really liked this presentation because it helped to clarify the significance of the Roman Empire empowers up until the time, the western empire "fell". It would be great to be able to have a way to print out the final array.
Great tier list!!! I have a question i would like your academic opinion on..knowing that you are a student of ancient history..if one wishes to go to school to study roman imperial history, more specifically study Roman dynasties and dynastic power/ideologies within imperial rome what would be the best route to take? The study of Classics or ancient history? I know there is an overlap in studies when it comes to the two..but what, in your opinion, would be a better route? Thanks again for all the great work
Calling Anthemius a puppet is just sad, he at least tried to do something to stop the decline of the west. That already makes him beter than pretty much all of the Western Roman Emperors excluding Majorian and Constantine III. He tried to stop the Vandals and Goths and yes he failed most of the time but he was an energetic, enthousiastic and somewhat capable emperor during the worst time in Roman history and therefore in my opinion deserves to at least be D tier if not higher. Also I believe that Julius Nepos at least deserves to be ranked instead of just being put into irrelevant. He was the last person claiming to be Western Roman Emperor which, although being a dubious honour at best, is something quite important. Not to mention his time in Dalmatia after the fall of the West which again already makes him way more important than someone like Avitus. Julius Nepos deserves at least an E ranking in my opinion, you can maybe even bump that up to a D. Also Tiberius in C? seriousely???
Nice Tier list! But I will put Constantius III in B for becoming another Claudius II, Petronius Maximus below Valentinian III, Pupienus in D while Balbinus in F (Slightly better than Constantine II, total embarrassing performance), Anthemius and Nepos in C from irrelevant. And I think Gallienus should be A, given his military, political and cultural (perseverance of classical culture in a turbulent time) contributions to the Roman Empire, while bumping Constans I and Severus to B tier.
Caligula's reign was prosperous, he was beloved by the people and the army. His economical issues would likely have been solved in the long run had he reigned twenty years instead of four, and the only people he didn't fw were the senate - aka the historians, hence the likely exaggeration of his reign's misgivings. Claudius and Nero went through the same historiographical treatment, but Caligula is the one I reckon would be remembered much better if he hadn't been murdered so early into his rule.
@@superuberscary Andrew Johnson was an almost-impeached "elected official" (I know the ethics of VPs taking the place of dead presidents are blurry) who lost the following election whereas Caligula was an "impeached" (re: brutally murdered) emperor. Obviously very different people in very different time periods.
Marcus Aurelius is overrated as he tried to found a dynasty rather than appoint the most competent successor as his predecessors had. They almost had a working system of succession down but he screwed it up and returned Rome to an era of civil wars.
@@tokiwartooth2661I don’t believe so. Marcus Aurelius had better choices as his heir, but Constantine didn’t. He only drove the empire into a civil war because he felt bad for his mentor Diocletian, and tried to restore the tetrarchy with his sons.
honestly there werent that many civil wars before the five good emperors era and i would blame it mostly on commodus for being a garbage ruler and killing any chance rome had of substantially expanding past the frontier
No he tried to appoint competent people at first, but they kept dying or refusing like both of his daughters Husbands who either died before him or refused on several occasions
It’s true that sticking the landing so to speak, the “succession issue”, a lot of Roman emperors failed. A lot of leadership fails this final test throughout history.
I think low A or high B. He was a great administrator and champion of the people, but also a corrupt politician and ultimately ended up restricting the rights of the people. He also did kinda commit genocide against the Gauls.
@@xada2397 I don't mean directly but his actions led to the office of consol becoming meaningless and democracy, direct or indirect, disappearing for hundreds of years.
Rating Decius E because he cracked down on Christians is just pure bias on your part. Has nothing to do if they were a good Emperor or not. Roman Paganism gave them their vigor and desire for fighting and other things that kept them going strong. Christianity neutered the Romans.
Now, that’s a ridiculous claim, my friend. While it’s true that Roman paganism played a role in motivating the Romans in their various endeavors, Christianity actually played a significant role in extending the empire’s lifespan by another thousand years in the form of the Byzantine Empire. Without conviction in their newfound faith, or if it hadn’t motivated them, the empire would likely have crumbled entirely in the 5th century. Additionally, traditional Roman paganism wasn’t always a driving force for the Romans. From the time of Emperor Hadrian onwards, the people began shifting their focus from their traditional deities towards more esoteric beliefs and metaphysical philosophies, which actually opened their minds to accepting a new religion.
You started well and then fucked up. Christianity didn't weak them or anything like that, that's a illuministic bias that actively searched ways to discredit christianity. You can judge and analize history with such biases. And I'm saying this as a huge atheist and religion hater
Nah bruz, no way philip the arab is c. Absolute e tier or lower. Stopped paying the gothic tribes which eventually lead to them invading and the battle of abritus. So bad he got the next emperor killed.
Fed constant lies by his administrators, idled around for 30 years while everything went to shit killed his best man around and slaughtered barbarian women and children leading to the sack of rome isnt bad?
