Amazing video! Overall, it's a very accurate ranking. In my opinion, Galba deserve the "Bad" rank as well, for his cruelty, sacking of cities and complete lack of self-preservation. He's undoubtedly better than Nero for his attempts to reduce the spendings, though. As well as Severus Alexander, who in my opinion was atleast "Good". The bad discipline in army is the result of the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. He tried to fix that. I also don't know any bad things Vespasian did during his reign. Maybe he deserves "Great"? Although, I lack information about him...
Marcus Aurelius was an excellent ruler. The philosophy is just the cherry on top. He also kept Lucius Verus from becoming Nero. A shame his son Commodus was an irredeemable monster from the start, yet he was by default the successor.
If commodus was a better heir, Marcus Aurelius would be up there with Augustus and Trajan. He was great in everything, but his poor choice of an heir is what keeps him from being in Augustus' level
What i'd add: Tiberius -was unpopular for much of his reign Still at the good tier though Titus +Finished the colloseum +Aided the survivors of Pompeii Nerva -Unpopular with the army and people (Trajan being his heir is what saved him) Overall great vid
in reality the pax romana ended in 235, in fact with the Severians the empire was still in good condition and able to expand. In my opinion Iulia Domna also deserves to be mentioned, as she helped in the government of her husband and practically governed all the civil part of her son
The more time passes, the more Uncle Claudius rise in the ranks and recognition. Truly the ugly duckling of the Roman Empire. He's also strengthen the position of the Emperor. Shame about his awful luck with women. Same for Domitian. People used to compare him to Caligula and Nero! Now we know he laid the foundation of the period of Four Good Emperors. (And Nerva).
Thank you very much. This video helps us get to know the Roman emperors better and know what their position is, but from my point of view, Septimius Severus should have been very good.
Kinda i feal bad about the Alex Severus. I mean his regin ended with murder, and had to face crissis after crissis, but still it was no fault of his own, but his predesscesors. After all, he managed to defeat the Ardashir I of Sasanids, crushed all of revolts, and found the great and talented people to help him rule, like Ulpian (Personaly I love that guy). They could help him with the rebuilding of the Empire from the rule of Caracalla, Elagabalus and Macrianus. "No man rules alone" as a rule #1 for rulers says. Alex could been a good emperor if he had a chance to be. But then came that barbarian Thrax and... Ya know that better than me.
Had his army been properly disciplined, not only would he have survived, but his Sassanid campaign would have done much better. Heaps of booty from Ctesiphon could be enough to either pay off the barbarians, or pay for punitive campaigns. No peasant Emperor needed.
You were being a little harsh to Nero and Caligula I feel. The 2 leaders mostly got their reputation lost due to the aristocrats not liking them. Caligula bankrupted the empire so I understand why you put him but I do not think his intentions were bad. Nero ruled for 15 years, was very popular and his reign was in peace - So I think he should atleast get a Medium
What id propose Caligula is medium + he was kind to the people - he bankrupted the empire Nero very good +His rain was stable +He rebuilt Rome after the great fire +he stopped the death penalty +won the war with the partians +he was assassinated Nerva is bad +adopted Trajan as his heir -bankrupted the empire while in a good position in terms of of economic advancement -his reign was short
How I'd rank Augustus - Great. Stabilised the empire after constant civil war, made a lot of territory expansions, 40+ years on the throne Tiberius - Very Good. He continued on for another 20 years and his administration was solid. He was really just a nice and boring emperor which is what rome needed after 40 years of augustus. His only mistake was sejanus. Caligula - Bad. Bankrupted the treasury after 4 years, though this was not his intention - He was a kind leader who cared for his people, though he did so in a way that bankrupted the treasury. All of the bad things you hear about him are just character asassinations by the senate as he was unpopular with the aristocracy Claudius - Very good. Stabilised the empire, conquered britain, good administration, stable 12 years on the throne Nero - Controversial, but, Very Good - He had very good advisors, he avoided a recession, the empire was stable for 15 years, he cared for the poor, he rebuilt Rome after the fire, only gets a bad rep due to character assasinations. Otho - Bad Galba - Bad Vitellius - Bad All 3 destabilised the empire by gaining power via military force and doing nothing Vespasian - Very good, stabilised the empire after the year of 4 emperors and was a good administration and good tax policies Titus - Good. Put down Jewish revolt,continued vespasian's policy - Would be higher if he reigned longer Domitian -Very good (Your reasons p much some up what I think of him),imo an unfortunate character assassination victim, along with Caligula and Nero Nerva - VERY BAD. You ruled for 2 years and managed to bankrupt an empire after some of the best economic management the empire had seen. WTF Trajan - Great - Reasons listed in video Hadrian - Very Good - Not as accomplished as Trajan but still an overall good leader, though he did get carried by trajan it feels Antoninus - Very Bad Stable and boring leader for 23 years after the overwhelming success of Trajan and Hadrian. P much Tiberius 2.0 M. Aurelius - Great - Put down rebellions, strengthened borders, good administrator, kept peace - Everything after him went downhill Commodus - Bad - Trusted his advisors too much, weak leader Lucius Verus - Medium - Reasons listed Pertinax - Medium - Reasons listed Didius Julianus - Bad - Destabilised empire Septimus Severus - Bad - P good reign though his currency debasement and increase of military pay was not a good thing Caracalla - VERY BAD - Overall cruel leader and made the previous ossues with septimus severus a lot worse Geta - Medium Macrinus - BAD - Destabilising Diadumenian - BAD - Destabilising Elagabalus - VERY BAD - Reasons listed in video Alexander Severus - VERY GOOD - Long and boring reign which stabilised the empire and tried to solve the economic issues
Nice points and well argued, but it's the first time I've ever saw someone call Nero as "Very Good" and Antoninus Pius as "Very Bad"! 🤔 I agree that Nero was demonized by historians and Senate and that the common people loved him. But he wasn't a competent emperor and in the end a youngster who got corrupted by excessive power.
Well, the point of a good empire is they are peace in one time of the timeline, Antonius Pius is done great and reason listed in the video. The only thing we can agree is he was unpopular throughout his reign so yeah, he probably deserves Good
Bad Septimius Severus? he literally put an end to the civil war and the excessive power of the corrupt praetorians (who had sold the position of emperor). Then he conquered many territories in Mesopotamia and Arabia, creating a new province and also in Africa in Fezzan, the empire probably reached its maximum extension according to some historians right with him. Furthermore, as a positive thing, it strengthened the imperial power towards the Senate by creating a dynasty (which did not go well but through no fault of its own), it favored the conditions of the legionaries allowing them to marry and increasing their pay (this was actually negative but also had positive implications), it also increased the power of the equestrian class
just a question, how do you determine whether an emperor is good or bad from the stuff they did? is there a certain amount of bad stuff that makes the emperor very bad or can one stupid move bring his ranking down?
The next part will be about the Crisis of the Third century and the early Dominate.
is there please gonna come a parthian series or a safavid one please
Amazing video! Overall, it's a very accurate ranking.
In my opinion, Galba deserve the "Bad" rank as well, for his cruelty, sacking of cities and complete lack of self-preservation. He's undoubtedly better than Nero for his attempts to reduce the spendings, though.
As well as Severus Alexander, who in my opinion was atleast "Good". The bad discipline in army is the result of the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. He tried to fix that.
I also don't know any bad things Vespasian did during his reign. Maybe he deserves "Great"? Although, I lack information about him...
@@MrSergore vespasian started the colosseum project and many other building projects, he also improved a lot of stuff
Elagabalus was so crazy that his own grandma contributed to his assassination
Marcus Aurelius was an excellent ruler. The philosophy is just the cherry on top. He also kept Lucius Verus from becoming Nero. A shame his son Commodus was an irredeemable monster from the start, yet he was by default the successor.
If commodus was a better heir, Marcus Aurelius would be up there with Augustus and Trajan. He was great in everything, but his poor choice of an heir is what keeps him from being in Augustus' level
What i'd add:
Tiberius
-was unpopular for much of his reign
Still at the good tier though
Titus
+Finished the colloseum
+Aided the survivors of Pompeii
Nerva
-Unpopular with the army and people
(Trajan being his heir is what saved him)
Overall great vid
Man this video was so damn fun…keep making those!
Even if they aren’t long, they are always very interesting and your knowledge is very deep!
in reality the pax romana ended in 235, in fact with the Severians the empire was still in good condition and able to expand.
In my opinion Iulia Domna also deserves to be mentioned, as she helped in the government of her husband and practically governed all the civil part of her son
Tiberius and Domitianus are super underrated.
Fr
The more time passes, the more Uncle Claudius rise in the ranks and recognition. Truly the ugly duckling of the Roman Empire.
He's also strengthen the position of the Emperor. Shame about his awful luck with women.
Same for Domitian. People used to compare him to Caligula and Nero! Now we know he laid the foundation of the period of Four Good Emperors. (And Nerva).
Bardzo fajny film. Życzę Ci powodzenia dalej w rozwijaniu kanału pozdro
waited this for so long tbh
the european war napolean soundtrack hits hard
Thank you very much. This video helps us get to know the Roman emperors better and know what their position is, but from my point of view, Septimius Severus should have been very good.
Kinda i feal bad about the Alex Severus. I mean his regin ended with murder, and had to face crissis after crissis, but still it was no fault of his own, but his predesscesors. After all, he managed to defeat the Ardashir I of Sasanids, crushed all of revolts, and found the great and talented people to help him rule, like Ulpian (Personaly I love that guy). They could help him with the rebuilding of the Empire from the rule of Caracalla, Elagabalus and Macrianus. "No man rules alone" as a rule #1 for rulers says.
Alex could been a good emperor if he had a chance to be. But then came that barbarian Thrax and... Ya know that better than me.
Had his army been properly disciplined, not only would he have survived, but his Sassanid campaign would have done much better. Heaps of booty from Ctesiphon could be enough to either pay off the barbarians, or pay for punitive campaigns. No peasant Emperor needed.
You were being a little harsh to Nero and Caligula I feel. The 2 leaders mostly got their reputation lost due to the aristocrats not liking them. Caligula bankrupted the empire so I understand why you put him but I do not think his intentions were bad. Nero ruled for 15 years, was very popular and his reign was in peace - So I think he should atleast get a Medium
What id propose
Caligula is medium
+ he was kind to the people
- he bankrupted the empire
Nero very good
+His rain was stable
+He rebuilt Rome after the great fire
+he stopped the death penalty
+won the war with the partians
+he was assassinated
Nerva is bad
+adopted Trajan as his heir
-bankrupted the empire while in a good position in terms of of economic advancement
-his reign was short
Lol
On the defense of Caligula, his reign had no long term effect on empire, and also he was despised by senate, who had historians to pay for.
How I'd rank
Augustus - Great. Stabilised the empire after constant civil war, made a lot of territory expansions, 40+ years on the throne
Tiberius - Very Good. He continued on for another 20 years and his administration was solid. He was really just a nice and boring emperor which is what rome needed after 40 years of augustus. His only mistake was sejanus.
Caligula - Bad. Bankrupted the treasury after 4 years, though this was not his intention - He was a kind leader who cared for his people, though he did so in a way that bankrupted the treasury. All of the bad things you hear about him are just character asassinations by the senate as he was unpopular with the aristocracy
Claudius - Very good. Stabilised the empire, conquered britain, good administration, stable 12 years on the throne
Nero - Controversial, but, Very Good - He had very good advisors, he avoided a recession, the empire was stable for 15 years, he cared for the poor, he rebuilt Rome after the fire, only gets a bad rep due to character assasinations.
Otho - Bad
Galba - Bad
Vitellius - Bad
All 3 destabilised the empire by gaining power via military force and doing nothing
Vespasian - Very good, stabilised the empire after the year of 4 emperors and was a good administration and good tax policies
Titus - Good. Put down Jewish revolt,continued vespasian's policy - Would be higher if he reigned longer
Domitian -Very good (Your reasons p much some up what I think of him),imo an unfortunate character assassination victim, along with Caligula and Nero
Nerva - VERY BAD. You ruled for 2 years and managed to bankrupt an empire after some of the best economic management the empire had seen. WTF
Trajan - Great - Reasons listed in video
Hadrian - Very Good - Not as accomplished as Trajan but still an overall good leader, though he did get carried by trajan it feels
Antoninus - Very Bad Stable and boring leader for 23 years after the overwhelming success of Trajan and Hadrian. P much Tiberius 2.0
M. Aurelius - Great - Put down rebellions, strengthened borders, good administrator, kept peace - Everything after him went downhill
Commodus - Bad - Trusted his advisors too much, weak leader
Lucius Verus - Medium - Reasons listed
Pertinax - Medium - Reasons listed
Didius Julianus - Bad - Destabilised empire
Septimus Severus - Bad - P good reign though his currency debasement and increase of military pay was not a good thing
Caracalla - VERY BAD - Overall cruel leader and made the previous ossues with septimus severus a lot worse
Geta - Medium
Macrinus - BAD - Destabilising
Diadumenian - BAD - Destabilising
Elagabalus - VERY BAD - Reasons listed in video
Alexander Severus - VERY GOOD - Long and boring reign which stabilised the empire and tried to solve the economic issues
Nice points and well argued, but it's the first time I've ever saw someone call Nero as "Very Good" and Antoninus Pius as "Very Bad"! 🤔
I agree that Nero was demonized by historians and Senate and that the common people loved him. But he wasn't a competent emperor and in the end a youngster who got corrupted by excessive power.
A bit harsh on Antoninus Pius...
He was very good if anything.
Well, the point of a good empire is they are peace in one time of the timeline, Antonius Pius is done great and reason listed in the video. The only thing we can agree is he was unpopular throughout his reign so yeah, he probably deserves Good
Bad Septimius Severus? he literally put an end to the civil war and the excessive power of the corrupt praetorians (who had sold the position of emperor).
Then he conquered many territories in Mesopotamia and Arabia, creating a new province and also in Africa in Fezzan, the empire probably reached its maximum extension according to some historians right with him.
Furthermore, as a positive thing, it strengthened the imperial power towards the Senate by creating a dynasty (which did not go well but through no fault of its own), it favored the conditions of the legionaries allowing them to marry and increasing their pay (this was actually negative but also had positive implications), it also increased the power of the equestrian class
We need a godly tier for Marcus, Aurelius and Augustus
just a question, how do you determine whether an emperor is good or bad from the stuff they did? is there a certain amount of bad stuff that makes the emperor very bad or can one stupid move bring his ranking down?
How is Alexander Severus medium?
👍
Who is the best emperor between Augustus and Trajan?
Augustus
both
Trajan
Agree but :
-caracalla should be bad
-alexsnder severus should be good
-tiberius should be medium
Apparently Nerva bankrupted the empire in just 2 years so he's in the bad tier imo
Nero was the best.
He killed Christians. That's not good
Are you mad bro
Domitian was ok but FAR from good
Agree. a critical approach to ancient sources is necessary, but sometimes modern historical revisionism goes too far