@@imperiumbrasiliae I know, I watched it and fairly enjoyed it. I just think it's hilarious that he forgot Vespasian but remembered two ultra-obscure "emperors"
One French king was assassinated by a killer hiding in a toilet (stabbed in the one place you wouldn't want to be stabbed), and the worst polish king literally choked on a pickle.
Honorable mention and mad props to my boy Julius Caesar. While he technically wasn't an emperor, he was simultaneously the worst thing that happened to the Roman Republic and the best thing that happened to the Roman Empire.
Well to be fair, Elagablasus was absolutely the worst emperor. Dude did cosplaying all day, would trick guests into Dr. Evil seats to be thrown through a trap door to be killed, and he tried to replace Roman gods with Syrian ones as he was even a priest to a Syrian Sun god. Yeah no one shed a tear when he got Thanos snapped by his army. People cheered when horses dragged his body through Rome
He was the 1 man who saved his entire world, how the fuck is he not the best Roman Emperor? Literally it all depended on him, plus in that time period if he did something different, he could’ve made the Roman Empire never ever collapse.
@@ye7625 that’s exactly what happened. Someone heard they were on the list for corruption and so he made a lie saying that all of the officers/friends in Aurelian’s army were also on this list of corruption. In doing so they killed him…
@@SciRuler Yea only for 30 years later for the empire to be separated in 2. Let's be honest,Aurelian just prelonged the inevitable and managed to keep it friendly
imagine living as one of the mighty Roman Emperors over a 1500 year period, having that life, ruling over millions of people - and then, some dude throws you on a goddamned tier list like a thousand years later. shit makes me laugh.
His real last words were: "Too late. This is fidelity." Also we have no real evidence whether his poetry and singing were good or bad because the only people who wrote about him were his political enemies.
@@justsometimber1nthelake873 Caesar was a Roman Consúl and also Dictator for life in the Roman REPUBLIC era, he was part of the 1st triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and before his adopted son Octavian (augustus) Declared himself emperor
@@justsometimber1nthelake873 maybe, in the top 5 for sure, but it does really depends on wheter you see Jvlivs Caesar as the savior of Rome or as a tiranic dictator.
@@naisusunai1841 He did a lot of good, though it sucks democracy ended, he was like Augustus before Augustus even came and had only a decade to do so many things.
@@patriciapalmer1377 difference is the good emperors get the reign for decades (if their health persist) while good presidents have to step down in a few years (8 if they're lucky) altho an exception to that was FDR.
@@FazeParticles And said in my comments I'm 103, lived thru much, not Wilson, worst of all time and the man that almost got me expelled, nor the 3,4th, worse Roosevelt, Johnson ! Carter! Nixon!Clinton! Obama! Biden! THAT'S SIX GOD AWFUL, 3 Impeachments and another run out of office to avoid one. Give me term limits or give me death goddammit, 100 genders, 100 pronouns, up is down, down is up, a stupid electorate and kids that match. JesusMaryandJoseph it's nuts but I'd die for this.grand experiment, America. Sooo, have a great day and week! Pat 🏖️ Florida
Marcus Aurealius understood the Empire was doomed, but he continued to provide good leadership and statesmanship, even though twilight was coming to Rome. Possibly the most unselfserving of all of the Emperors. He seemed to be a Roman of the "Old School".
He was the closest thing to Plato's "philosopher king". For all his wisdom, he was oblivious to the failings of his family. His wife was a cheating whore and his son was a monster in the making. He never opened his eyes about his son, but he started taking his wife with him on campaign. It probably didn't stop her, but just slowed her roll.😂
To be fair, most of them came about in the crisis of the 3rd century. Either they were corrupt generals/murderers or didn't have the opportunity to prove themselves.
@@comicsans1689 In average they had longer reings, because people like good rulers. Look how Augustus himself got 40 years long reign and the other good emperors got like 20 years long reign.
Its like how you look that Donald Trump is one of thoese good ones that knows how to lead nation with making so good economy, while Joe Biden is one of the last ones that is absolute terrible leader, that takes orders from others and do not know how to play war situations well.
For those who want the timestamps of each Roman emperor in chronological order Augustus 19:14 Tiberius 15:52 Caligula 1:14 Claudius 16:17 Nero 5:59 Galba 9:39 Otho 6:13 Vitellius 5:12 Vespasian Not Shown Titus 14:51 Domitian 17:43 Nerva 12:17 Trajan 18:55 Hadrian 18:16 Antoninus Pius 15:17 Lucius Verus 8:39 Marcus Aurelius 17:25 Commodus 1:37 Pertinax 6:39 Didius Julianus 2:56 Septimus Severus 13:05 Caracalla 2:10 Geta 2:24 Macrinus 5:20 Diadumienan 4:03 Elagabalus 0:56 Severus Alexander 11:51 Maximinus Thrax 7:51 Gordian I 6:51 Gordian II 6:58 Pupienus 3:50 Balbinus 3:50 Gordian III 4:40 Philip the Arab 9:07 Philip II 4:49 Decius 8:16 Hostilian 8:05 Trebonianus Gallus 2:36 Volusianus 3:26 Aemelian 3:43 Valerian 8:58 Gallienus 14:17 Saloninus 5:30 Claudius Gothicus 12:37 Quintillus 3:37 Aurelian 16:52 Tacitus 10:15 Florianus 5:06 Probus 12:06 Carus 12:50 Carinus 4:54 Numerian 7:44 Diocletian 16:27 Maximian 7:07 Constantius 13:32 Galerius 9:23 Constantine 18:36 Constantius II 13:41 Constantine II 1:49 Constans 10:22 Vetranio 8:22 Julian 11:03 Jovian 5:35 Valens 10:31 Valentinian 15:30 Gratian 3:19 Valentinian II 3:12 Theodosius I 15:01 Magnus Maximus 5:48 Victor 4:30 Eugenius 4:24 And, that’s it! Not going to timeline the Western or Eastern Roman emperors. Given the choice between time lining Roman emperors and having a life, I choose having a life.
Emperor Claudius is one of my favorites. Basically put in as a puppet emperor by his powerful family who thought he was a dimwit that would be easy to control. Claudius had always had a stutter, something his family made fun of him for, he was sent off to live as a simple scribe/scholar. When the last emperor died the power was thrust onto to Claudius. Far from being an easily controlled dimwit though he was actually a smart and effective emperor that saw the British isle successfully invaded (something Caesar failed doing multiple times), apparently he gave great speeches to, his stutter would disappear for them so the vast majority of Romans had no idea about the stutter.
He became emperor because he was of the royal family and because they found him hiding behind the curtains, and the Praetorian Guard needed a warm body ASAP. He did very well as an Emperor, but he was really not a good judge of character (see Messalina and Agrippina).
Caesar didn't fail to invade. He invaded Britain successfully. It's just that the time wasn't right to organize a sustained roman occupation of Britain. Gallia was still volatile and if the Britons rose up in rebellion there was a huge risk gauls would stop the republic from sending backup. The time just wasn't right for a prolonged occupation of Britain.
@@MegaMaxiepad Truth to be told, it's likely Claudius wasn't that passive in his own elevation. 1) He departed from Gaius along with two other senators shortly before the murder 2) There were people embroiled in the conspiracy who were close to Claudius, like L. Aspraenas, whose father had explicitly requested Claudius' name to be inserted in the thanks delivered after the death of Germanicus, and the freedman Callistus, who became a prominent advisor of Claudius and who had already started courting his favour while Gaius was still alive It's quite possible that Claudius was at least passively aware of the conspiracy, and it's likely that some of conspirators worked quickly and steadily on Claudius' behalf.
Caesars invasion of Britain wasn't for full annexation. He wanted to fuck them up, for helping the Gauls. He did. He actually deserves much credit for not getting bogged down in Britain, or Germany.... Let's not spin a BS narrative... Caesar has one of the greatest military records in history, and is at least top 10 greatest commanders of all time.
Fun Fact: Of the 503 years that the Roman Empire existed until the fall of the western part in 476, 301 of those years were spent under the rule of the 17 "good" emperors on this list. Roughly 59% of classical Imperial Roman history was led by competent emperors, despite competent emperors only making up about 22% of the 77 total. It should also be noted that the best and longest reigning emperor was also the first.
@@dodoiserg3371 who's better? Aurelian could have but didnt, Trajan; ok, who improves on the other more Trajan in Augustus' place, or Augustus in Trajan's? Or is it someone else, just curious
@@fanofaurelian5478 i find Aurelian and Constantine I better honestly. Without Constantine I, Christianity would be doomed and Aurelian managed to save the empire at its lowest point
@@dodoiserg3371 Constantine I tends to be popular amongst the Christian population. Secular or non-Christian ppl have less reason to think he is the best of the best. I am not Christian and I see him sitting around the top 5 but I wouldn't put him above Augustus .
What I find unbelievable too is that we know the exact date of Caesar's birth and death, yet we dont even know Charlemagne's birth year, even though the former was born around 800 years before the latter. Really emphasises how f*cked up things got in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire...
I kept hearing "gods" when you said "Goths", so "famous for defeating the gods" and "killed by the gods" as a couple examples. Picturing it in my mind was pretty funny xD
For one funny story about Caligula Supposedly he was told he was as likely to become emperor as he was to ride across a bay without getting his horse shoes wet When he became emperor had built a bridge of boats just so he could ride across the bay while his horses feet stayed dry
A fun story with a great twist - there was supposedly a grain shortage in Rome that year...something to do with the Emperor using a large number of big boats for something, so they weren't around to ship grain
Glad to see Uncle Claudius get due credit. His rating is about right, but I encourage everyone to read his full story. Claudius is, without a doubt, Rome's most unlikely great emperor.
I would have put Gordian III higher on the list, for a child emperor, he was okay, lasted five years, was well-liked by the people, didn't really do anything to tick anyone off.
@@thalmoragent9344 mutiny all the time, two usurpers, soldiers from Europe didn't want go to fight against sasanid and kill their officers , lack of discipline and coesion and coesion, draconian law to avoid the soldiers from deserting... Alexander severus is underrated
For anyone wondering (correct me if I'm wrong), Valentinian died while negotiating with the Quadi tribe, when they complained that Rome had attacked them and that it was the reason they were raiding roman territory he got so furious with outrage he had a seizure and died.
The Quadi also also got a few jokes on at Valentinian’s expense too which sent him over the edge, something along the lines of “this treaty can stop us from invading, but seeing as the Quadi aren’t a United people it means nothing for other tribes” to paraphrase Mike Duncan’s account of the story.
Brent Bowman The way you phrased it makes it sound like among names such as Gaius and Valentinian was a bloke called Mike Duncan who just happened to be there.
You are correct in stating that it's a wonder the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did despite many terrible Emperors. Some of those guys like Nero, Caligula were at least in power when the Empire was very powerful, so the Empire made it despite them. The real wonder is how long the Empire lasted when it was past the glory days, and with lots of civil wars and clowns in control. And yes, Aurelian could have been so much more. His accomplishments were great considering the Empire wasn't exactly in its best days anymore.
I recently watched a documentary on caligula he started of as a good leader but sadly eventually paranoia drove him to make some very questionable choices
It's all about foundations. The reason why all emperors styled themselves after the first one, at least those who had any interest in keeping it strong, was because Augustus was an excellent administrator himself, many of the things he did were with the purpose of making an efficient machine that could survive a bad ruler.
@@marcnolan2409 despite Tiberius having been a good emperor, there's no doubt he made Caligula be much of what he became. How much of Caligula's madness was inherent rather than acquired is debatable though.
You missed Vespasian; 69-79 AD, the best emperor and altogether awesome dude. The guy ended the troubled year of four emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and him), fixed Rome's finances after Nero bankrupted the empire, turned Nero's land over to the public so that the coliseum could be built, and he even had a decent personality, allowing writers to critique and jibe him without going full Vesuvius.
Most of the bottom guys didn't reign nearly as long as the top guys. So about 40-50% of the time Rome had good emperors and then multiple bad emperors who died as fast as they got in.
It's what makes people who are so into "strong men" politics so strange to me. You can look at any Empire or Kingdom, and, yeah, you might be thinking "if only we had an Augustus in charge!" but you got to realize that your chances are much greater you'll get some random worthless dude who (unlike a Roman Emperor) won't even have the grace to die quickly. So enjoy being stuck with Elagabalus for 40 years ... And it's true for ie Chinese Emperors and the likes as well (though I always felt that the HRE had, on balance, a surprisingly average bunch of Emperors more or less throughout).
@@ernimuja6991 the great thing about autocracy is that you know youre stuck with a ruler and thus have good reason to murder the really awful ones you dont have to wait till the pricks term runs out you can fast forward it yourself by stabbing the cunt Its like reloading in a video game keep doing it until you get a good result or at least a non shitty one
@@lugiasimply6054 not 1, because other emperors not only conquered more land but they kept the empire stable, Aurelian didn't have time to prove himself long term
Yes the idea of one Praetorian Guard commander was genius... and than chilling on his island and dont give a shit about anything that Sejanus wasnt the best idea too.
I admit, I cringed when seeing that Vespasian (one of my top favourites) was missing, but at least you gave him his own follow-up video. Also, mad props for actually being objective about Domitian. Universally loathed, almost at the bottom of any list of emperors, and yet when researching for my current series (which takes place during his reign) I kept scratching my head while thinking, "Okay, why exactly was he so 'bad'?"
Most of why Domitian was bad was because the Senate hated him and that class of people wrote the history and decided to ruin his reputation even though he didn't really perform that badly.
@@NMahon, agreed. It didn't help that Tacitus was the son-in-law of Julius Agricola, and he accused Domitian of recalling Agricola from Britannia out of spite. However, he'd already been governor for seven years; whereas a typical provincial governor's tenure was just three to four years. I am glad to see that certain "bad emperors", namely Nero and Domitian, are getting a second look by historians. Although with Gaius Caligula, Commodus, and Elagabalus, there is no rehabilitating. They really were that bad! I also would have ranked Galba much lower. When I wrote my two-volume set on the Year of the Four Emperors, he was the only one I could not find anything positive to say about. Otho, I felt had potential and might have made for a decent emperor. Hard to say, of course, given the brevity of his rule. Heck, even Vitellius I was able to portray with a touch of sympathy, and I'm an unabashed Vespasian fanboy!
@@daname1491, James Mace, actually. Though I do think Fabbri is awesome as well. Thanks to social media, I've been able to make friends with other fellow Roman authors; Lindsay Powell, Simon Turney, Kevin Ashman, Harry Sidebottom, Ben Kane, to name a few. And Ron Peake of the Marching with Caesar series actually befriended me years ago, back when he first started. First-rate fellows, all. 😊
@@legionarybooks13 Wow! I‘ve only gotten into the whole historic roman book genre a couple months ago. Soldier of Rome is actualy the next book series on my list.
Pretty much everyone knew Augustus and Trajan would be number 1 and 2 ("Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano") but I expected Aurelian to come in third place. Hes kind of like the Mozart of Roman Emperors, died way too early. One can only imagine what would have happened if he had reigned for 2 decades or more.
We can make a good estimate as to what his reign would have entailed if he had survived longer. Given he was in his 50s when he came to power, he would have had around 20-30 years left. When he was assassinated he was preparing his army for something quite big, given that he died in eastern Thrace it seems it would either be the reconquering of Dacia and surrounding areas to make it less of a liability, or a campaign against the Sassanids as some form of revenge for them assisting Palmyra. In terms of internal affairs, there likely would be further riots but only a few due to the harshness of his attitude on corruption. There would also have been a fair greater presence of the sun god as in his time as Emperor he made 3 new temples to Sol Invictus, and would likely have the greatest change to our history.
Yeah definitely thought Aurelian would be up there. Marcus Aurelius is my personal favourite but let's be honest, he was basically just keeping things well oiled. Aurelian essentially inherited a fire the size of the empire and stomped it out. 1. Augustus 2. Trajan 3.Aurelian 4. Hadrian 5. Aurelius
One thing I feel is often overlooked and should be mentioned about Julian is that he basically one step away from winning the entire war had he survived a little longer. The Persians were in an extremely tight spot to the extent that Rome would've likely returned with a huge victory and one less adversary. This being led by a guy who had to essentially teach himself how to do so on the fly, all so his emperor cousin could be rid of him. Instead, the Persians walked away with a surprising upset. There are so many alternate history questions I like to think about, "What if Pius didn't live for a bloody eternity and Marcus Aeurelius reigned earlier?", "What if Julian lived long enough to support his administrative changes and secure his succession?", "How would Rome fare if the West emerged victorious at Frigidus", "What if Majorian avoided assassination?", the list goes on.
Those are interesting, but it's worth noting that Julian started a war he wasn't ready for. I'll never understand why he didn't consolidate his rule further before trying to attack Persia. Glory to the victors or whatever but Rome wasn't ready for that war
@@letanefonoti3 Attacking Persia *was* consolidation. His greatest area of weakness was the loyalty of the Eastern Army that had served Constantius II for decades. He needed to shore up their loyalty, while also bringing home the bacon for the Eastern provinces where he was not well-known. A victory over the Sassanids would have done both in spades and served as a foundation for a very long and prosperous reign. Had he lived of course. Much would have been different. Most notably he doesn't blunder with the Goths. No Adrianople. No division of the Empire. No reliance on Germanic troops due to the catastrophic loss of an entire field army.
Julian is the prototypical nerd who thinks that, just because he has a high IQ, he can do everything. "Grand strategy... how hard can that be? I've read all the great philosophers, nothing's beyond me!" The fact that he came close to succeeding is actually baffling.
@@PaulTobelmann Though modern comparisons aren't exactly the easiest to translate to Rome's world at that time, Julian became what he did because of what his life was. He spent decades at the brink of death while under a more dangerous, imperial version of the Christian landscape that was forming around him. One that would form some basis into what would calm down to bore children many generations later. That "nerd"" was thrown into a life-or-death situation in which his cousin, the Emperor (A man who had Julian's family killed and only spared him because he was too young) had put him. Julian had multiple ways he could've responded, not many Roman nobles would go through the kind of crash course at which Julian excelled. He went from "Nerd" to "Soldier" in like six months and then proceeded to do the job correctly correctly. So much so, that, after the successes he had had, the man had an army willing to hail him emperor by the time he was done. Mistakes are warranted but he was not, at all, guaranteed to make it through the next day, yet he pulled it off. There are many smart people, but intelligence doesn't always lead to success. Very few could actually emerge with an emperorship and a legitimate military record all while trying to put his principles into practice while having been born in one of the most conniving families known to Rome. He was given a job and decided to become the job. Succeeding in a way that many try and fail at.
I couldn’t agree more with the high ranking of Domitian. He was actually the one who went away from the Princeps system. A dude who could see that the senate had no use other than gobbling up money, he made the emperor the point of power, whereas Rome was in the past. A true autocrat, but loved by the people and hated by the old, rich senators.
He's one of the examples of the benevolent dictator model of government as a hypothetical top tier government. Unfortunately, as the bulk of this list reveals, you aren't going to get many Domitians over time in charge, which is why that model of government has virtually always lead to bad results.
Domitian is also the only emperor who can claim to have been loved by the Praetorians to the extent that they avenged him a couple of years later under Nerva.
You did Aurelian dirty, leaving out the social and religious reforms he put in place, somewhat successfully breaking up corruption in the capital, and as much as he abandoned Dacia, he reconquered Frace, Spain, Egypt and the Levant meaning technically he had the most expansion, it was just of previously conquered territory that had been lost.
No if anything he gave him too much credit. Not only did basically all of his reforms fail, but he had terrible succession problems, low trust from his men getting him killed, and the territory he got back were minor rebellions that anyone with a decent army could have done. That's like saying anyone who deals with usurpers conquered the most which you never say because technically by your logic Constantine conquered the whole empire.
@@dariusonly1384 i dont know where you are getting your information from but its incorrect. As according to both the Historia Augusta and Edward Gibbon, his reforms were passed off as Diocletians and were very successful, though they were few, he lacked a successor but since no one wanted to try to fill his shoes it took time to find a fitting emperor, which was far supirior to what had happened prior, and in this time his wife ruled peacefully, he had very high trust with his men, he died because he threatened a corrupt administrator who forged a death warrant for his generals from Aurelian and gave it to said generals, who killed him in a knee jerk reaction they later regretted. To call the Gaullic and Palmyrene empires small is to say the Roman Empire was as such. They were not rebels but had suceeded and where seperate empires, as can be seen by none claiming to be the Augustus. If youre tryna be a contrarian get a better argument, if you actually believe youre correct then i would be dubious of where you recieved your information.
@@duxromanorum9861 You forget that this was after Aurelian had vanquished the Alemanni, Gothic, Palmyrene and some rebelling Roman forces. If you were leading a disorganised state and found out that a general who had vanquished every enemy he had come across to the extent that Aurelian had, you too would look to surrender. War is not always won through battle, and Aurelian won the war with Gallic Rome through mainly his reputation.
Massive thumbs up for being one of the few people who realize Domitian did a fantastic job on stabilizing a potentially disastrous path for roman coinage!
Pertinax is one of my favorites, when the angry soldiers wanted to kill him, he tried to talk to them, got killed anyway. He has my respect for this move though
From what I understand, he actually almost talked them out of it, it was just one angry soldier that went through with killing him. Really can’t blame him for not paying up when there was legitimately NO money left to pay them with (thanks Commodus)
I personally think Gordian III should be ranked higher, he lasted for six years on the throne which is quite impressive for a crisis of the third-century emperor.
Not that hard when you're a child puppet "emperor" to the Praetorians. Then the Praetorian prefect died and was replaced by Philip the Arab, who, well, killed the 19 year old Emperor.
Are trying to imply that Aurelian was greater than Trajan, who conquered Dacia which Aurelian abandoned? Or greater than Augustus who founded the empire? or Constantine who was by far a greater statesman and General who led his troops at their head not staying safely behind? BTW Constantine started out with Just Britain and Gaul under his rule and ended winning the entire empire and even reconquered Dacia which as said Aurelian abandoned. Being 7th is already a good result for Aurelian.
@@chrisgrech7992 Conquering Dacia (Romania) wasn't a brilliant move. It over extended the Empire and wasted resources. Abandoning Dacia freed up legions that could be used to protect more critical areas and put down other rebellions. Rome's Dacia campaigns are similar to America screwing around in Afghanistan and eventually having to pull out. Augustus didn't found the Empire. He overthrew a republic which was already an great imperial power and made himself a dictator. He is not one of the good ones, he is a villain.
Aurelian is my favourite Emperor; would love to see a timeline where he isn't assassinated by a bogus letter written by Eros. Yes, I do agree, he was too OP but that's what made him great!
That's ultimately the problem with a supreme ruler. You can have 5 amazing rulers, but 1 could undo them all. Rome had 5 bad emperors for every good one.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 To be honest I think no matter the system of governance you will always have good leaders be outnumbered by the bad ones, or if you are lucky the mediocre.
For some reason whenever I was learning about Rome I always like Domition. After reading up on him when I got older I found he was actually one of the most underrated emperors only cuz of how much the Senate hated him.
Gallienus had his honor unfairly stripped by the senate too. Domitian, alongside Hadrian, were the emperors who most closely understood the wisdom of Augustus's policies, namely his reluctance to expand the empire further. Trajan was a great administrator and general, but his invasion and conquest of Dacia and Persia were setbacks for the empire in the long term. Persia was not sustainable for Rome to hold and Hadrian was right to abandon it. He also understood the border implications of Dacia (which would first be a big problem about 25-30 years after his death in the Marcomannic wars) and tried to abandon it too, but he faced too much opposition to do so there. And speaking of Dacia, Domitian almost destroyed Decebalus years before Trajan did, but a usurpation forced him to sue for peace so he could deal with that ASAP. And he was the first emperor to see the wisdom in investing much more in the provinces, an example Hadrian was wise to follow.
"the only reason Nero is hated cuz the Christians hated him" and the Jews... and the Plebs, and the Popularies, and the Senatorial class, and the Roman army and that teenage boy whom he had kidnapped, castrated and forced to live as his female sex slave because he resembled his wife whom he had previously beaten to death in a fit of rage... And anyone who was forced to attend his concerts. Although the story that he danced and played the fiddle as Rome burnt was definitely not true, because the fiddle hadn't been invented.
“The only reason he’s seen as terrible is because the Christians hated him.” Being rounded up for execution by someone will definitely affect your opinion of that person.
It's clear enough that the Christians were uncompromising troublemakers. Refusing to pray for the health of the Emperor - they were just looking for a short cut to paradise.
Nero was not the only one to prosecute the christians, Diocletian purged way more people than Nero ever did, christians where a small minority at the time.
Good call, placing Aurelian in the top ten. This in and of itself indicates you have something on the ball. Many positions can be argued round or flat but I agree that Augustus should be a consensus number one and I can’t think of anyone seriously challenging Trajan for the second spot. All in all really good work.
@SamoaVsEverybody_814 I wouldn't put Diocletian above Claudius and just one slot below Aurelian. Almost everything he tried to do was a failure in the long run
Victor (died August 388 AD) was a Western Roman emperor from 387 to August 388. He was the son of the magister militum Magnus Maximus, who later became a usurper of the Western Roman Empire, in opposition to Gratian.
To everyone praising Aurelian - yes, was a great general and when Rome was at it's lowest (at the time), he managed to "restore the world". But he also had a reputation for being very strict and undiplomatic. My guess is that as soon as the waters calmed and he became a politician, rather than a general, he would soon meet the fate of the strict emperors, like Galba. Or he could become another Diocletian and hold things together by his iron will. But even that doesn't last...
A lot of emperors not being strict was the downfall of the empire. The Romans could take strict as long as the conquests or at least victories kept coming. The Romans were focused as long as there was war, as they were very militaristic (but also smart, unlike Sparta).
Ew did you just compare Aurelian to Galba??? Nah but Fr the timing between Aurelian and galba was extremely different. Galba was an old soldier who was respected in the military and he lived during a time of complete peace in the Roman interior. Aurelian though was the best general of his time. He achieved near mythical status in just 5 years and was seen as a god by his contemporaries. Also you are wrong he was strict but he was definitely not undiplomatic. When he went through the east conquering the palmyrene empire he gave mercy to all of the cities who had betrayed Rome for palmyra and he also gave mercy to Queen Zenobia of palmyra the first time he invaded. When she rebelled again he had to destroy them. Even his death isn’t anywhere similar to how Galba died. Galba got killed by the praetorian guard because they were used to being bribed and pampered by Nero so when Galba came around acting strict and cheap they killed him out of spite. During Aurelian’s time the empire was in constant warfare so as a result and contrary to popular belief the praetorian guard was fulfilling its true purpose and going on campaign with Aurelian as an elite legion. The vast majority of them were incredibly loyal to Aurelian and killed him assassins despite his strictness. The only reason he was even assassinated was because of a single dude. This scribe or official or secretary or whatever he was made a mistake and feared what Aurelian would do to him so he went and lied to some of Aurelian’s officers in the praetorian guard and told them that Aurelian planned to killed them. In desperation they went and killed Aurelian and by the time they realized their mistake it was too late.
@@Kunumbah1 DOn't forget Aurelian was like 50 years old by the time he became emperor and had long served in the military and under other Roman Emperors. Also he migt have been strict but he was also very pragmatic (abandoning Dacia which I'm sure must have been a controversial decision especially amongst the more conservative romans) and really disipline and order is really what the empire needed at the time
he was about to march on the persian empire - it was about to be a new height for the roman empire - they probably would've eventually went to war with china.
He stopped to death his pregnant wife. Murdered his own mother ( after she put him in power) because he tired of her being a mother. Castrated a boy and married him ( because he reminded him of his late wife. Burned Christians alive so as to provide light for his night parties 🥳 Didn't really rule Rome..( his advisors ruled ) he was too busy walking the streets drunk , getting into brawls...pretending to be a actor or poet , ect. He should have been at the bottom.
I think you’re too forgiving with Nero. His first five years were good but that was because he had very good advisors in Burrus and Seneca early on. When their Burrus died and Seneca’s influence waned he showed himself to be crazy. Not as bad as Caligula but the same thing that happened with commodus and he got no mercy
@@IchBinDeinGott No way, most of the things Nero said the Christians did they didn't do and was mostly him appealing to the Herodian Jews. Which showed to be an ill found loyalty when they would revolt given the first opportunity.
@@aninjathtpwndu Christians at the time were a very small religious cult and that meant they were a easy target for blame. Also a lot of bad reputation Nero have come from biased sources (especially the Great Fire of Rome) even if his death is absurd, fearing being executed by the Senate he attempted suicide just to not have the courage to do it itself and have someone help him with the absurdity being the Senate was trying to working out a compromise to save the bloodline with his death leading to the Year of Four Emperors.
@@aninjathtpwndu I agree with you, Nero was an awful persecutor of Christians. He also wasn’t liked by other Romans who disliked his thespian antics. It’s not fair to say he’s only remembered badly because Christians hated him.
I don't think Nero gets enough credit for his handling of the Great Fire of Rome. If anything, he was TOO quick and TOO far-sighted in his response, to the point where people assumed he must have caused the fire if he was getting this much good out of it. It seems he really used the opportunity to rebuild Rome for the better--basically into what it is now, in many ways (give or take a few millennia's worth of rewrites). It seems to have become a more picturesque, and far less flammable, imperial city after he was done, with broader streets, less squalor, more marble-er, Greek-ified buildings, and more fire buckets in people's houses. So, basically Nero was no Napoleon, but he was maybe on a par with Napoleon III, who also managed to sculpt Paris into the city we hate to love.
Diocletian gave up his imperial purple and was begged to return. Instead he chose to enjoy the innocent pleasures in life of farming and architecture. When asked why he wouldn’t return he said ‘if only you saw how big and lovely my cabbages are… you would understand.’ Absolute gangster!! B)
Honorable shoutout to Majorian (AKA, Aurelian 2.0) for doing his best to keep the empire together when literally everyone else was trying to break it apart.
@@hefik8689 Aurelian was undoubtedly a follower of Elagabalus. Rome's two greatest third century emperors were each given their many military victories by the great Sun God Itself
I think Antoninus Pius is underrated. Hear me out. He listened to the senate, as he had been a senator himself, and although it started with Hadrian, which picked Antoninus exactly with the purpose of making the senate and Princess co-exist again, Antoninus managed it to keep it going. The Senate was so happy with Antoninus that they awarded him the title Pius. Furthermore, he was probably in the top 3 for emperors effect on the economy. He somehow left Marcus Aurelius 2 billion sestertii, without which Marcus Aurelius reign would have probably not been so good (pandemic and wars). He was the only emperor that increased the goverment expenditure on the province of Italy, without decreasing those of the provinces. The opposite of what Hadrian did. He set up on an enourmous building project throughout Italy. He expanded the grain doll to over 200k, bringing it back to republican time size. He also expanded the border north in Britannia. Although not for long and finally he put down two large revolts in Egypt and Dacia. All of this without ever actually leaving the Province of Italia. He extended governorship to good governors, sometimes for a decade. Most important of all. He was the only emperor not to participate any war whatsoever, and respected Hadrian’s wishes to make Marcus Aurelius emperor, having him educated and participate in politics to ready him for it, had Antoninus not cared, Marcus Aurelius would not have been as well remembered as he is. I actually believe he might have been probably one of the best 5 emperors. Better then his successor. Other emperors overshadow him because of their foreign success. However few emperors were as successful in demoestic politics, peraphs only Augustus truly competing.
15:52 Tiberius 16:17 Claudius 16:27 Diocletian (?) 16:53 Aurelian 17:25 Marcus Aurelius 17:44 Domition + Fixed Inflation 18:16 Hadrian + Defense + Drills + Provincials + Succession Plan 18:37 Constantine + Solved So many problems 18:54 Trajan + CEO Superior 19:13 Augustus + The Founder
The first time I've ever seen a video made by a channel with less that a thousand, scratch that, less that 10 thousand subs get into my recommended. For you getting blessed by the algorithm and for your dedication to the roman empire, you have earned a sub from me.
glad Claudius made it to the Top 10!! i feel like he gets a bit overshadowed at times but he was a rare example of an Emperor who actually bettered the quality of life of the plebeians
Thank you so much i always wanted to see which all were the best. Thank you for so painstakingly compiling this. I've downloaded this video for my refence as well. You saved me and atleast a thousand others so much work. Thank you
I agree with you with your high rating of Gallienus. Edward Gibbon had a poor opinion of him, but I always felt Gibbon was unfair. Gallienus really had his work cut out for him, including multiple usurpers and his father being captured by the Persians, and he did reasonably well considering the circumstances.
Gibbon is super overrated and one of the few things I agree with modern historians about is how he shouldn’t be used as the main source for the historical narrrative of Rome.
Basically, a lot of Gibbons views on all the caesars can be dismissed entirely purely because of how dated his work is. Most modern academics would almost entirely reject his work as a source unless it's in a historiographical context
@@matpaterson8830 As a work of literature, it's first-rate, but, as a history, the author's biases are fairly plain and we've learned a lot more about ancient Rome since it was written, in particular archaeology was hardly even a science in the 18th century.
That was Claudius. He acted slow for years so that Caligula wouldn't have him killed, because he would see him as too pathetic to go after his rule. Claudius did a Prestige on everyone.
Also Domitian had the most effective bureaucracy, was one of the only emperors to crack down on corruption and replaced the nepotism of his predecessors with a more merit based system
Before watching the video. My picks for top 5 Emperors: Augustus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Aurelian, and Constantine I. After watching the video. Hey, I got 3 out of 5 correct! 😎👌
@@acelmo7007 tbf Augustus has done alot of sh** to deserve his first place and so did Trajan, Marcus Aurelius was great, but against the guy who litteraly founded the empire lived a lo’g and successfull time as emperor and made a Roman golden age out of an era filled with civil wars called the republic, and the guy who brought Rome to its greatest extand and held it all together for quite a while too, nearly everyone is beat
@spectrum I appreciate you put Tacitus higher than the middle. For a man who by all accounts was a senior citizen, he died leading his troops against a barbarian incursion. He did nothing to dishonor the office, and liked to collect glass items.
I kinda like how it’s strictly about how they were for the empire. It’s not about personality or how evil they were, it’s just we’re they good or not for the empire. Neat.
Gonna be honest, probably all or most of these men would have been utter douchebags to hand out with. Arrogant, noble, aggressive, brutal, temperamental. They look good today because they died thousands of years ago and there have a chain of historians who keep calling them good emperors. They were all dicks
Great list, imo. I'd put Tiberius and Diocletian even higher on it, and Vespasian... Well, on the list at all (and with a very high placing as well), but overall I never felt like your ranking was flawed - therefore, again, great list!
Where is my homeboy Vespasian :'((( He deserves to be in the top 10 for real! Not a shiny character, but brought peace and stability, also a very down to earth guy with great sense of humor
I've seen so many of these and this is the first one that I can get behind top to bottom. I was especially delighted that he cared for the monetary policies. Those had a much longer lasting influence on the well-being of the empire than more attention-grabbing fluff that most other rankings focus on.
Vespasian should be second on this list. Not only did he resolve the Year of the Four Emperors that could've become a civil war like the Crisis of the Third Century, he was just as good an administrator as Augustus and more capable militarily. He also had a good heir and ruled for a long time.
I disagree with some of your placements, but top-notch list! The podium is absolutely on-point. The only change I’d make is to have Constantine be above Trajan, but it's those three for sure.
Glad you put Domitian so far up, the golden age of the Roman Empire really started under Vespasian and Domitian carried it on quite handily, fixing the economy was insane on his end, really saved everyone a lot of problems. I would knock him down a few points for pissing off the senate however, this lead to his death which could have lead to another civil war if Nerva hadn't been able to grab control of power. Good emperors do not give people more reasons to assassinate them
Tell that to litteraly everyone who wasnt Augustus because i think they didnt learn that pissing people off and not getting rid of them first is a problem (except that one guy who suicded himself, he knew he was the problem i guess)
Marcus Aurelius his whole mindset was maintaining and keeping order, improving the quality of life. And he did exactly that, respect his fellow human etc. It depends what you think is good.. perhaps Alexander the great was an Amazing ruler, from Macedon eyes. Not so much from Turk eyes. Marcus was a 10/10 emperor from his perspective and his goals
That's almost verbatim what I came to say after seeing the list. By my metric he should be first. He maintained peace and stability for his own people.
While the language was a little rough for me, I enjoyed seeing how you would do these and the little snippets of info on some of those emperors I know next to nothing about lol. Thank you for the video! God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Hadrian one of my personal favs along with Auralien. the infastructure & Defensive focus made Hadrian favored by the common folk more so, and Auralien really pulled that empire out of the trash!
"Nero wasn't that bad, just mediocre" Really, I've only ever heard bad things about him so I can't wait to see what he says abou... and he moved on to the next one without elaborating. Genuinely curious why you think Nero wasn't that bad though, considering the large amount of atrocities he committed.
Honestly I’m just surprised Hadrian was rated higher than Nero. Nero did a ton of awful stuff (poor Sporus), but what Hadrian did to Jerusalem was… god damn, man. (Also there are some sources claiming that Nero led the relief and rebuilding efforts after the great fire, and instituted building codes to keep it from happening again, but the sources are not contemporary. Ironically, the same problem is for the reverse: a lot of Nero’s worse actions are written about by sources like Cassius Dio, who lived hundreds of years after Nero and may have been mythologizing or demonizing previous emperors. And, at risk of offending some people, Christians do have a really bad habit of historical revisionism. Just as an example right here: most people remember Nero as being worse than Hadrian, when Hadrian, again, was… well.)
@@Nobythulhu What Hadrian did to Judea was horrendous but from a cold, administrative, Roman perspective it wasn't a bad thing. The Jews had thrown 3 major rebellions before that which were all very costly for the empire and from then on the province never gave them any trouble. This list is ranking emperors based on how competently they could rule the empire, not moral character and Hadrian was objectively a good emperor
I am very glad you placed Domitian to the number five spot .He deserves to be number five . But I think Aurelian should be three . What he did in five short years was miraculous . He was the Sandy Koufax of Roman Emperors.
@@th1cc Look, Augustus laid the foundations for the modern 'Western World'. Which in turn, influenced most of the rest of the world. His 'Pax Romana' is probably the greatest single achievement of any singular individual. You can say Jesus or Muhammad, but they just have their own followers, within their own religion. Their religions embraced ideas that Augustus started, whether they want to admit it, or not. Laws, democracy, taxes, the arts, you name it... Augustus was the modern originator. Maybe not the first. But in modern terms, he did it the best. I like Jesus, in all fairness. But, I'm sorry, on the grand scale, he isn't even close.
*Interestingly the "plebs" actually loved Caligula (a nick name meaning "Little Boots"), and was very popular among them. When Caligula, Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, (his real name), was assassinated the people of Rome rioted. It was only with the nobles and the aristocracy in the Senate that Caligula vented his wrath with. Maybe he saw them as snobs and elites which would explain why he antagonized them and also explain why the ordinary people liked him so much. I mean , who wouldn't like to see the ruling political class taken down a peg or three...even today?*
@@lukajacoby3129 Look at Domitian who after he died was perceived as a tyrant and even had his name condemned to Oblivion by the Senate and that negative perception of him remained for years even by sources like Tacitus and Cassius Dio.
Great list. I might disagree with Elagabulus as the worst (although I agree he was one of the worst). But the Emperor was not really evil enough to be truly decadent. Many of the "crimes" he was guilty of in the eyes of his subjects would be seen as enlightened today. His treatment of slaves and prostitutes as people, not allowing executions without trial, his rampant homosexuality, and worst of all in his subjects' eyes, allowing women an equal voice in government. But at that time, these made for a bad ruler. Personally Id put Commodus last but I respect your list. nice work.
it makes sense that most emperors were bad as the bad ones tended to have short reigns. the good ones tended to last longer and were therefore fewer in number.
Props for ranking Tiberius so high. Can you imagine having to follow Augustus? I do feel sorry for Postumus, though if I had that name I'd be worried about my chances too. Probably wasn't such a hilarious pun back then though.
Tiberius was a pretty good administrator, in fact the bureaucracy he set up ran things so well, he was basically able to retire (Capri) and not even worry about administration. Problem is Tiberius seemed to lack a drive for greatness and charisma. I suspect he was a melancholic introvert, which later turned into paranoid recluse. He would have been a great co-emperor handling things back home.
I couldn't agreed more on Domitian's ranking. Besides, I think there's more to be discovered, re-evaluate and be said about an emperor who wasn't crazy or paranoid in a sense of Caligula's manners! I think that Domitian was typically authoritarian and very eccentric, but his record has showed us to be keen in justice and a driving force when it comes to economy and of the overall stability of the Roman Empire in the late 1st century B.C
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
For those asking about Vespasian: th-cam.com/video/2DaCcKF9D00/w-d-xo.html
Herennius was the son of decius and they were killed by goths hostilian died of plague
How do you remember to include Vetranio and Voluscianus but forget Vespasian?
@@darrynmurphy2038 he made a video
@@imperiumbrasiliae I know, I watched it and fairly enjoyed it. I just think it's hilarious that he forgot Vespasian but remembered two ultra-obscure "emperors"
@@darrynmurphy2038 i think herennius was even more obscure he also forgot theophilos in the Byzantine emperors
Had to look up why Valentinian’s death was so funny. Turns out, he got so angry at some envoys that he had a stroke and died while yelling at them.
The guy was Doomslayer levels of fucking angry.
My man.
damn bro he had too much mountain dew
Is this what actually happened? Sounds like they killed him and all agreed to say he had a stroke lmao.
One French king was assassinated by a killer hiding in a toilet (stabbed in the one place you wouldn't want to be stabbed), and the worst polish king literally choked on a pickle.
“This guy was emperor for 17 days.”
still better than a dozen emperors
You can't do that much damadge to the empire in 17 days after all! Heh
Watch me
Nero literally burned down the whole entire city and then killed himself
@@bige4567 nobody's perfect
@@bezahltersystemtroll5055 SBSJABDJABJS
Honorable mention and mad props to my boy Julius Caesar. While he technically wasn't an emperor, he was simultaneously the worst thing that happened to the Roman Republic and the best thing that happened to the Roman Empire.
He was Gaius.
Do i smell there Cicero Plebs conspiring?!
More like he was the worst thing to the Roman senators.
Pffff
Caesar was like emperor 0. Yes Augustus was the first. But he wouldn’t have been shit without Caesar anyway.
RIP to all those Emperors that ranked lower than the guy who ruled 17 days 💀
Sorry for your loss
When your worse, than the emperor who ruled for 17 days. Then you know that your preatty shit leader for hugh empire.
Cries in the French King that was a 5 day old baby
Well to be fair, Elagablasus was absolutely the worst emperor. Dude did cosplaying all day, would trick guests into Dr. Evil seats to be thrown through a trap door to be killed, and he tried to replace Roman gods with Syrian ones as he was even a priest to a Syrian Sun god. Yeah no one shed a tear when he got Thanos snapped by his army. People cheered when horses dragged his body through Rome
@@Deadsea_1993 Tried to replace roman gods with Syrian ones? Absolutely based
The Roman Empire is collapsing
Aurelian: steps in
"You're wrong"
* Refuses to elaborate further *
* dies *
He was the 1 man who saved his entire world, how the fuck is he not the best Roman Emperor? Literally it all depended on him, plus in that time period if he did something different, he could’ve made the Roman Empire never ever collapse.
@@SciRuler It could be argued that he did do everything right which lead to people losing their shit that they could be purged for corruption...
@@ye7625 that’s exactly what happened. Someone heard they were on the list for corruption and so he made a lie saying that all of the officers/friends in Aurelian’s army were also on this list of corruption. In doing so they killed him…
@@SciRuler Yea only for 30 years later for the empire to be separated in 2.
Let's be honest,Aurelian just prelonged the inevitable and managed to keep it friendly
We could have colonized Mars if he wasnt killed
imagine living as one of the mighty Roman Emperors over a 1500 year period, having that life, ruling over millions of people - and then, some dude throws you on a goddamned tier list like a thousand years later.
shit makes me laugh.
>literally the most powerful man in the entire world for several years
>"Number 58. He really didn't do much, next."
Thats immortality at its finest dudes dead and here we are still mentioning him...he succeeded in life 💯
Everything you said was wrong!
I like to think some of them watched this video and are like “uh, what?! That is BS!”
Marcus Aurillious might find it interesting
"Who are you?"
"I was the emperor that got killed by the praetorian guard for being shit"
"That doesn't narrow it down"
Cries in aurelian being assassinated for no solid reason by the pr*etorian guard
That doesn't Nero it down, lmao .
@@EerieProps Nero actually committed suicide. Good joke anyways though.
@@Frost-dv7bg yeah that was a good joke ngl
@@Frost-dv7bg ‘uH hUh’ is what my mom says when I offer an explanation for something
if u want to watch it in chronological order:
- 19:14 Augustus
- 15:52 Tiberius
- 1:14 Caligula
- 16:17 Claudius
- 5:59 Nero
- 9:39 Galba
- 6:13 Otho
- 5:12 Vitellius
Vespasian
- 14:51 Titus
- 17:43 Domitian
- 12:17 Nerva
- 18:55 Trajan
- 18:16 Hadrian
- 15:17 Antonius Pius
- 17:25 Marcus Aurelius
- 8:39 Lucius Verus
- 1:37 Commodus
- 6:39 Pertinax
- 2:56 Didius Julianus
- 13:05 Septimius Severus
- 2:10 Caracalla
- 2:24 Geta
- 5:20 Macrinus
- 4:03 Diadumenian
- 0:56 Elagabalus
- 11:51 Alexander Severus
- 7:51 Maximinus Thrax
- 6:51 Gordian I
- 6:58 Gordian II
- 3:50 Pupienus
- 3:50 Balbinus
- 4:40 Gordian III
- 9:07 Philip the Arab
- 4:49 Philip II
- 8:17 Decius
- 7:24 Herennius Etruscus
- 2:36 Trebonius Gallus
- 8:05 Hostilian
- 3:26 Volusianus
- 3:43 Aemilian
- 8:58 Valerian
- 14:17 Gallienus
- 5:30 Salonius
- 12:37 Claudius Gothicus
- 3:37 Quintillius
- 16:52 Aurelian
- 10:15 Tacitus
- 5:06 Florianus
- 12:06 Probus
- 12:50 Carus
- 4:54 Carinus
- 7:44 Numerian
- 16:27 Diocletian
- 7:07 Maximian
- 13:32 Constantius I
- 9:23 Galerius
- 6:29 Serverus
- 9:53 Maxentius
- 11:38 Licinius
- 7:31 Maximinus
- 4:19 Valerius Valens
- 4:13 Martinian
- 18:36 Constantine I
- 1:49 Constantine II
- 10:22 Constans
- 13:41 Constantius II
Magnentius
Nepotianus
- 8:22 Vetranio
- 11:03 Julian
- 5:35 Jovian
- 15:30 Valentinian I
- 10:31 Valens
Procopius
- 3:19 Gratian
- 5:48 Magnus Maximus
- 4:30 Victor
- 3:12 Valentinian II
- 4:24 Eugenius
- 15:01 Theodosius I
Thank you
This really helpful as I don't know much about the chronological order of roman emperors. Thank you.
Thanks
based
Nice
Fun fact: nero’s last words were: “what a great poet the world is losing in me.” Was he a great poet? No not really.
He sucked as a poet And as a emperor. He was great in his own mind.
I thought the more accurate translation was:
"What an artist the world loses in me"
@@trajan182 Yeah...he sucked at that too 😑
@@trajan182 maybe, but I heard he said poet, plus I don’t know if he was into all the arts like that, I just know he was really into poetry
His real last words were: "Too late. This is fidelity." Also we have no real evidence whether his poetry and singing were good or bad because the only people who wrote about him were his political enemies.
Timestamps of Each:
77 - 0:56 - Elagabalus
76 - 1:14 - Caligula
75 - 1:37 - Commodus
74 - 1:49 - Constantine II
73 - 2:10 - Caracalla
72 - 2:24 - Geta
71 - 2:36 - Trebonius Gallus
70 - 2:56 - Didius Julianus
69 - 3:12 - Valentinian II
68 - 3:19 - Gratian
67 - 3:26 - Volusianus
66 - 3:37 - Quintillus
65 - 3:43 - Aemilian
64 - 3:50 - Pupienus
63 - 3:50 - Balbinus
62- 4:03 - Diadumenian
61 - 4:13 - Martinian
60 - 4:19 - Valerius Valens
59 - 4:24 - Eugenius
58 - 4:30 - Victor
57 - 4:40 - Gordian III
56 - 4:49 - Philip II
55 - 4:54 - Carinus
54 - 5:06 - Floranius
53 - 5:12 - Vitellius
52 - 5:20 - Macrinus
51 - 5:30 - Salonius
50 - 5:35 - Jovian
49 - 5:48 - Magnus Maximus
48 - 5:59 - Nero
47 - 6:13 - Otho
46 - 6:29 - Serverus
45 - 6:39 - Pertinax
44 - 6:51 - Gordian I
43 - 6:58 - Gordian II
42 - 7:07 - Maximian
41 - 7:24 - Herennius Etruscus
40 - 7:31 - Maximinus
39 - 7:44 - Numerian
38 - 7:51 - Maximinus Thrax
37 - 8:05 - Hostilian
36 - 8:17 - Decius
35 - 8:22 - Vetranio
34 - 8:39 - Lucius Verus
33 - 8:58 - Valerian
32 - 9:07 - Philip the Arab
31 - 9:23 - Galerius
30 - 9:39 - Galba
29 - 9:53 - Maxentius
28 - 10:15 - Tacitus
27 - 10:22 - Constans
26 - 10:31 - Valens
25 - 11:03 - Julian
24 - 11:38 - Licinius
23 - 11:51 - Alexander Severus
22 - 12:06 - Probus
21 - 12:17 - Nerva
20 - 12:37 - Claudius Gothicus
19 - 12:50 - Carus
18 - 13:05 - Septimius Severus
17 - 13:32 - Constantius I
16 - 13:41 - Constantius II
15 - 14:17 - Gallienus
14 - 14:51 - Titus
13 - 15:01 - Theodosius I
12 - 15:17 - Antonius Pius
11 - 15:30 - Valentinian I
10 - 15:52 - Tiberius
9 - 16:17 - Claudius
8 - 16:27 - Diocletian
7 - 16:52 - Aurelian
6 - 17:25 - Marcus Aurelius
5 - 17:43 - Domitian
4 - 18:16 - Hadrian
3 - 18:36 - Constantine I
2 - 18:55 - Trajan
1 - 19:14 - Augustus
But, where is Caesar?
@@justsometimber1nthelake873 Caesar was a Roman Consúl and also Dictator for life in the Roman REPUBLIC era, he was part of the 1st triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and before his adopted son Octavian (augustus) Declared himself emperor
@@naisusunai1841 The question remains, would he be No. 1?
@@justsometimber1nthelake873 maybe, in the top 5 for sure, but it does really depends on wheter you see Jvlivs Caesar as the savior of Rome or as a tiranic dictator.
@@naisusunai1841 He did a lot of good, though it sucks democracy ended, he was like Augustus before Augustus even came and had only a decade to do so many things.
I love how a lot of the good emperors are just fixing the mistakes of all the bad ones.
Sort of like many US Presidents
@@patriciapalmer1377 yep :(
@@patriciapalmer1377 difference is the good emperors get the reign for decades (if their health persist) while good presidents have to step down in a few years (8 if they're lucky) altho an exception to that was FDR.
@@FazeParticles And said in my comments I'm 103, lived thru much, not Wilson, worst of all time and the man that almost got me expelled, nor the 3,4th, worse Roosevelt, Johnson ! Carter! Nixon!Clinton! Obama! Biden! THAT'S SIX GOD AWFUL, 3 Impeachments and another run out of office to avoid one. Give me term limits or give me death goddammit, 100 genders, 100 pronouns, up is down, down is up, a stupid electorate and kids that match. JesusMaryandJoseph it's nuts but I'd die for this.grand experiment, America. Sooo, have a great day and week! Pat 🏖️ Florida
@@catsberry4858 see my comments above, best wishes and thanks ! P
I'd leave a smiley face but then I'd have to cut off my hand.
Marcus Aurealius understood the Empire was doomed, but he continued to provide good leadership and statesmanship, even though twilight was coming to Rome. Possibly the most unselfserving of all of the Emperors. He seemed to be a Roman of the "Old School".
no wonder was doomed with his choice of a succesor
Don't think he realised it would last another 1300 or so years as well as influence many nations for centuries following that.
@@j.d.5626 He didn't have much choice, all his other sons all died young.
@@fmentz well he didnt have to chose one of his sons
He was the closest thing to Plato's "philosopher king". For all his wisdom, he was oblivious to the failings of his family. His wife was a cheating whore and his son was a monster in the making. He never opened his eyes about his son, but he started taking his wife with him on campaign. It probably didn't stop her, but just slowed her roll.😂
17 out of 71 Roman Emporers actually knew how to govern a nation. Oof.
Those 17 typically had longer reigns that the bad emperors.
To be fair, most of them came about in the crisis of the 3rd century. Either they were corrupt generals/murderers or didn't have the opportunity to prove themselves.
@@comicsans1689
In average they had longer reings, because people like good rulers. Look how Augustus himself got 40 years long reign and the other good emperors got like 20 years long reign.
That leaves with every 4,5 person be great general, so remember thoese odds, when you try make somebody general.
Its like how you look that Donald Trump is one of thoese good ones that knows how to lead nation with making so good economy, while Joe Biden is one of the last ones that is absolute terrible leader, that takes orders from others and do not know how to play war situations well.
For those who want the timestamps of each Roman emperor in chronological order
Augustus 19:14
Tiberius 15:52
Caligula 1:14
Claudius 16:17
Nero 5:59
Galba 9:39
Otho 6:13
Vitellius 5:12
Vespasian Not Shown
Titus 14:51
Domitian 17:43
Nerva 12:17
Trajan 18:55
Hadrian 18:16
Antoninus Pius 15:17
Lucius Verus 8:39
Marcus Aurelius 17:25
Commodus 1:37
Pertinax 6:39
Didius Julianus 2:56
Septimus Severus 13:05
Caracalla 2:10
Geta 2:24
Macrinus 5:20
Diadumienan 4:03
Elagabalus 0:56
Severus Alexander 11:51
Maximinus Thrax 7:51
Gordian I 6:51
Gordian II 6:58
Pupienus 3:50
Balbinus 3:50
Gordian III 4:40
Philip the Arab 9:07
Philip II 4:49
Decius 8:16
Hostilian 8:05
Trebonianus Gallus 2:36
Volusianus 3:26
Aemelian 3:43
Valerian 8:58
Gallienus 14:17
Saloninus 5:30
Claudius Gothicus 12:37
Quintillus 3:37
Aurelian 16:52
Tacitus 10:15
Florianus 5:06
Probus 12:06
Carus 12:50
Carinus 4:54
Numerian 7:44
Diocletian 16:27
Maximian 7:07
Constantius 13:32
Galerius 9:23
Constantine 18:36
Constantius II 13:41
Constantine II 1:49
Constans 10:22
Vetranio 8:22
Julian 11:03
Jovian 5:35
Valens 10:31
Valentinian 15:30
Gratian 3:19
Valentinian II 3:12
Theodosius I 15:01
Magnus Maximus 5:48
Victor 4:30
Eugenius 4:24
And, that’s it! Not going to timeline the Western or Eastern Roman emperors. Given the choice between time lining Roman emperors and having a life, I choose having a life.
You did God's work, my friend.
Vespasian was robbed my guy, he should have top 10 or even top 5 in the rankings
Too much time on your hands. 🤣🤣 Thanks! 👍👍
No Cesar?
@@KRAE444 He was just a dictator, didn't declare himself an emperor
Emperor Claudius is one of my favorites. Basically put in as a puppet emperor by his powerful family who thought he was a dimwit that would be easy to control. Claudius had always had a stutter, something his family made fun of him for, he was sent off to live as a simple scribe/scholar. When the last emperor died the power was thrust onto to Claudius. Far from being an easily controlled dimwit though he was actually a smart and effective emperor that saw the British isle successfully invaded (something Caesar failed doing multiple times), apparently he gave great speeches to, his stutter would disappear for them so the vast majority of Romans had no idea about the stutter.
He became emperor because he was of the royal family and because they found him hiding behind the curtains, and the Praetorian Guard needed a warm body ASAP. He did very well as an Emperor, but he was really not a good judge of character (see Messalina and Agrippina).
Caesar didn't fail to invade. He invaded Britain successfully. It's just that the time wasn't right to organize a sustained roman occupation of Britain. Gallia was still volatile and if the Britons rose up in rebellion there was a huge risk gauls would stop the republic from sending backup. The time just wasn't right for a prolonged occupation of Britain.
@@MegaMaxiepad Truth to be told, it's likely Claudius wasn't that passive in his own elevation.
1) He departed from Gaius along with two other senators shortly before the murder
2) There were people embroiled in the conspiracy who were close to Claudius, like L. Aspraenas, whose father had explicitly requested Claudius' name to be inserted in the thanks delivered after the death of Germanicus, and the freedman Callistus, who became a prominent advisor of Claudius and who had already started courting his favour while Gaius was still alive
It's quite possible that Claudius was at least passively aware of the conspiracy, and it's likely that some of conspirators worked quickly and steadily on Claudius' behalf.
Caesars invasion of Britain wasn't for full annexation. He wanted to fuck them up, for helping the Gauls. He did.
He actually deserves much credit for not getting bogged down in Britain, or Germany....
Let's not spin a BS narrative...
Caesar has one of the greatest military records in history, and is at least top 10 greatest commanders of all time.
probably read up on Claudius ok?
Fun Fact: Of the 503 years that the Roman Empire existed until the fall of the western part in 476, 301 of those years were spent under the rule of the 17 "good" emperors on this list. Roughly 59% of classical Imperial Roman history was led by competent emperors, despite competent emperors only making up about 22% of the 77 total. It should also be noted that the best and longest reigning emperor was also the first.
not best tho.
@@dodoiserg3371 who's better? Aurelian could have but didnt, Trajan; ok, who improves on the other more Trajan in Augustus' place, or Augustus in Trajan's? Or is it someone else, just curious
@@fanofaurelian5478 i find Aurelian and Constantine I better honestly. Without Constantine I, Christianity would be doomed and Aurelian managed to save the empire at its lowest point
@@dodoiserg3371 Constantine I tends to be popular amongst the Christian population. Secular or non-Christian ppl have less reason to think he is the best of the best. I am not Christian and I see him sitting around the top 5 but I wouldn't put him above Augustus .
@@dodoiserg3371 Christianity lol
I think it’s unbelievable that we have the faces of all these guys preserved for thousands of years
All from coins, statues and busts
What I find unbelievable too is that we know the exact date of Caesar's birth and death, yet we dont even know Charlemagne's birth year, even though the former was born around 800 years before the latter. Really emphasises how f*cked up things got in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire...
@@pierrickroig5215what de-urbanization does to a mf
The kind of look the same though
@@vignotum132 people kinda look similar when they all generally come from the same place/families
I kept hearing "gods" when you said "Goths", so "famous for defeating the gods" and "killed by the gods" as a couple examples. Picturing it in my mind was pretty funny xD
Same lol
Same but each time "killed by the gods" was used I thoucht was speech fpr assassinared
i just imagined lighting striking a throne through a castle when he said that lol
@@dustindiaz9493 I thought it meant they died of disease lmao
@@miguelpereira9859 same everytime he said it I thought they died of natural causes during their reign 😂
For one funny story about Caligula
Supposedly he was told he was as likely to become emperor as he was to ride across a bay without getting his horse shoes wet
When he became emperor had built a bridge of boats just so he could ride across the bay while his horses feet stayed dry
A fun story with a great twist - there was supposedly a grain shortage in Rome that year...something to do with the Emperor using a large number of big boats for something, so they weren't around to ship grain
Yes it was a prophet and the bay of baio
Glad to see Uncle Claudius get due credit. His rating is about right, but I encourage everyone to read his full story. Claudius is, without a doubt, Rome's most unlikely great emperor.
Such was the destiny of Uncle Claudius...
@@Anders6244 dovah?
Such was life for uncle Claudius
Absolutely agree with you!
Perhaps the most underrated emperor ever.
I would have put Gordian III higher on the list, for a child emperor, he was okay, lasted five years, was well-liked by the people, didn't really do anything to tick anyone off.
Also alexander severus
@citully alexander severus? Nope he was fucked by his shitty army.. Trajan and caesar couldn't achieved anything with the army of alexander severus
@@alessandrogini5283
Damn, what happened to the Roman Army during this time? 😅
Damn, how'd he die? He lasted 5 years as a kid leading an Empire, seems cool
@@thalmoragent9344 mutiny all the time, two usurpers, soldiers from Europe didn't want go to fight against sasanid and kill their officers , lack of discipline and coesion and coesion, draconian law to avoid the soldiers from deserting... Alexander severus is underrated
For anyone wondering (correct me if I'm wrong), Valentinian died while negotiating with the Quadi tribe, when they complained that Rome had attacked them and that it was the reason they were raiding roman territory he got so furious with outrage he had a seizure and died.
i mean seems like a pretty solid reason
The Quadi also also got a few jokes on at Valentinian’s expense too which sent him over the edge, something along the lines of “this treaty can stop us from invading, but seeing as the Quadi aren’t a United people it means nothing for other tribes” to paraphrase Mike Duncan’s account of the story.
Brent Bowman The way you phrased it makes it sound like among names such as Gaius and Valentinian was a bloke called Mike Duncan who just happened to be there.
@@brentbowman4498 LOL the Germanic tribes were gangsta
You are correct in stating that it's a wonder the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did despite many terrible Emperors. Some of those guys like Nero, Caligula were at least in power when the Empire was very powerful, so the Empire made it despite them. The real wonder is how long the Empire lasted when it was past the glory days, and with lots of civil wars and clowns in control.
And yes, Aurelian could have been so much more. His accomplishments were great considering the Empire wasn't exactly in its best days anymore.
It was honestly the idea of Rome and the template of the Empire left behind by the greatest Caesars that let it last this long
@@supersani21 Turns out people like roads and commerce
I recently watched a documentary on caligula he started of as a good leader but sadly eventually paranoia drove him to make some very questionable choices
It's all about foundations. The reason why all emperors styled themselves after the first one, at least those who had any interest in keeping it strong, was because Augustus was an excellent administrator himself, many of the things he did were with the purpose of making an efficient machine that could survive a bad ruler.
@@marcnolan2409 despite Tiberius having been a good emperor, there's no doubt he made Caligula be much of what he became. How much of Caligula's madness was inherent rather than acquired is debatable though.
You missed Vespasian; 69-79 AD, the best emperor and altogether awesome dude. The guy ended the troubled year of four emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and him), fixed Rome's finances after Nero bankrupted the empire, turned Nero's land over to the public so that the coliseum could be built, and he even had a decent personality, allowing writers to critique and jibe him without going full Vesuvius.
Also, funnily, the only Emperor that in an earlier life was a transport contractor! The Emperor was a truckie, in modern terms!😅
He's responsible for the jews/gazans war or the isreali / Arabs war after he exiled the isrealis from palestine isreal
Exactly, I couldn't find Vespasian in the video, thought I was going mad. What a bloody good emperor. Top 10
Don’t understand why he forgot him. For me Nr 1. Pecunia non olet.
Domitian's economic reforms were completely necessary for the Antonine dynasty to do what they did, glad to see him get his deserved respect.
Based Domitian Enjoyer
Agreed .
Really a testiment to how Awsome the Roman Empire was that only the top 20% you listed reached the rank of “good”
It's like modern politics. You can a have a literal monkey on top of the state, as long as burocracy works, everything is fine.
Most of the bottom guys didn't reign nearly as long as the top guys.
So about 40-50% of the time Rome had good emperors and then multiple bad emperors who died as fast as they got in.
It's what makes people who are so into "strong men" politics so strange to me. You can look at any Empire or Kingdom, and, yeah, you might be thinking "if only we had an Augustus in charge!" but you got to realize that your chances are much greater you'll get some random worthless dude who (unlike a Roman Emperor) won't even have the grace to die quickly. So enjoy being stuck with Elagabalus for 40 years ...
And it's true for ie Chinese Emperors and the likes as well (though I always felt that the HRE had, on balance, a surprisingly average bunch of Emperors more or less throughout).
For every Augustus there’s a Commodus.
@@ernimuja6991 the great thing about autocracy is that you know youre stuck with a ruler and thus have good reason to murder the really awful ones you dont have to wait till the pricks term runs out you can fast forward it yourself by stabbing the cunt
Its like reloading in a video game keep doing it until you get a good result or at least a non shitty one
>Aurelian is number 7
Where my Aurelian‐bros at?
He should be top 5
1, actually
But does he praise the sun?!
@@lugiasimply6054 not 1, because other emperors not only conquered more land but they kept the empire stable, Aurelian didn't have time to prove himself long term
You can't rate someone who has been emperor for 5 years over the other emperors. They had accomplished more
Agreed (I've read his meditations). Not our list though & I'm not sure of why I watched this. The commentary is quality
Not giving Pupienus enough credit considering he has the funniest name in the history of human kind
Might've been one of the worst emperor names
On par with Lecapenus out east.
Wtf aeonair watches this?
Huh
He was as bad as Valentinian III imo?
It’s nice seeing someone who doesn’t just throw Tiberius to the absolute bottom of the Emperor Trash Pile.
I know right? I'm glad i'm not alone.
He was a serious man that Tiberius
Yes the idea of one Praetorian Guard commander was genius... and than chilling on his island and dont give a shit about anything that Sejanus wasnt the best idea too.
@@tegridyfarms6197 Never said he was perfect. I’m just saying anything good he did usually gets overlooked.
His pre-Imperator career gets way overlooked, he was honestly one of the best generals Rome ever had.
I admit, I cringed when seeing that Vespasian (one of my top favourites) was missing, but at least you gave him his own follow-up video. Also, mad props for actually being objective about Domitian. Universally loathed, almost at the bottom of any list of emperors, and yet when researching for my current series (which takes place during his reign) I kept scratching my head while thinking, "Okay, why exactly was he so 'bad'?"
Most of why Domitian was bad was because the Senate hated him and that class of people wrote the history and decided to ruin his reputation even though he didn't really perform that badly.
@@NMahon, agreed. It didn't help that Tacitus was the son-in-law of Julius Agricola, and he accused Domitian of recalling Agricola from Britannia out of spite. However, he'd already been governor for seven years; whereas a typical provincial governor's tenure was just three to four years. I am glad to see that certain "bad emperors", namely Nero and Domitian, are getting a second look by historians. Although with Gaius Caligula, Commodus, and Elagabalus, there is no rehabilitating. They really were that bad! I also would have ranked Galba much lower. When I wrote my two-volume set on the Year of the Four Emperors, he was the only one I could not find anything positive to say about. Otho, I felt had potential and might have made for a decent emperor. Hard to say, of course, given the brevity of his rule. Heck, even Vitellius I was able to portray with a touch of sympathy, and I'm an unabashed Vespasian fanboy!
Robert Fabbri? Big fan!
@@daname1491, James Mace, actually. Though I do think Fabbri is awesome as well. Thanks to social media, I've been able to make friends with other fellow Roman authors; Lindsay Powell, Simon Turney, Kevin Ashman, Harry Sidebottom, Ben Kane, to name a few. And Ron Peake of the Marching with Caesar series actually befriended me years ago, back when he first started. First-rate fellows, all. 😊
@@legionarybooks13 Wow! I‘ve only gotten into the whole historic roman book genre a couple months ago. Soldier of Rome is actualy the next book series on my list.
Pretty much everyone knew Augustus and Trajan would be number 1 and 2 ("Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano") but I expected Aurelian to come in third place. Hes kind of like the Mozart of Roman Emperors, died way too early. One can only imagine what would have happened if he had reigned for 2 decades or more.
We can make a good estimate as to what his reign would have entailed if he had survived longer. Given he was in his 50s when he came to power, he would have had around 20-30 years left. When he was assassinated he was preparing his army for something quite big, given that he died in eastern Thrace it seems it would either be the reconquering of Dacia and surrounding areas to make it less of a liability, or a campaign against the Sassanids as some form of revenge for them assisting Palmyra. In terms of internal affairs, there likely would be further riots but only a few due to the harshness of his attitude on corruption. There would also have been a fair greater presence of the sun god as in his time as Emperor he made 3 new temples to Sol Invictus, and would likely have the greatest change to our history.
Heraclius is kinda the ""Aurelian's extended version"".So we know
Yeah definitely thought Aurelian would be up there. Marcus Aurelius is my personal favourite but let's be honest, he was basically just keeping things well oiled.
Aurelian essentially inherited a fire the size of the empire and stomped it out.
1. Augustus
2. Trajan
3.Aurelian
4. Hadrian
5. Aurelius
Augustus handsome leader that was Roman leader for 40 years. Julius Caesar liked him, so he made sure Augustus would be Roman emperor after him.
One thing I feel is often overlooked and should be mentioned about Julian is that he basically one step away from winning the entire war had he survived a little longer. The Persians were in an extremely tight spot to the extent that Rome would've likely returned with a huge victory and one less adversary. This being led by a guy who had to essentially teach himself how to do so on the fly, all so his emperor cousin could be rid of him. Instead, the Persians walked away with a surprising upset. There are so many alternate history questions I like to think about, "What if Pius didn't live for a bloody eternity and Marcus Aeurelius reigned earlier?", "What if Julian lived long enough to support his administrative changes and secure his succession?", "How would Rome fare if the West emerged victorious at Frigidus", "What if Majorian avoided assassination?", the list goes on.
Those are interesting, but it's worth noting that Julian started a war he wasn't ready for. I'll never understand why he didn't consolidate his rule further before trying to attack Persia. Glory to the victors or whatever but Rome wasn't ready for that war
@@letanefonoti3 A shame since he showed such promise as a military leader with his campaigns against the Germans.
@@letanefonoti3 Attacking Persia *was* consolidation. His greatest area of weakness was the loyalty of the Eastern Army that had served Constantius II for decades. He needed to shore up their loyalty, while also bringing home the bacon for the Eastern provinces where he was not well-known. A victory over the Sassanids would have done both in spades and served as a foundation for a very long and prosperous reign. Had he lived of course. Much would have been different. Most notably he doesn't blunder with the Goths. No Adrianople. No division of the Empire. No reliance on Germanic troops due to the catastrophic loss of an entire field army.
Julian is the prototypical nerd who thinks that, just because he has a high IQ, he can do everything. "Grand strategy... how hard can that be? I've read all the great philosophers, nothing's beyond me!" The fact that he came close to succeeding is actually baffling.
@@PaulTobelmann Though modern comparisons aren't exactly the easiest to translate to Rome's world at that time, Julian became what he did because of what his life was. He spent decades at the brink of death while under a more dangerous, imperial version of the Christian landscape that was forming around him. One that would form some basis into what would calm down to bore children many generations later. That "nerd"" was thrown into a life-or-death situation in which his cousin, the Emperor (A man who had Julian's family killed and only spared him because he was too young) had put him. Julian had multiple ways he could've responded, not many Roman nobles would go through the kind of crash course at which Julian excelled. He went from "Nerd" to "Soldier" in like six months and then proceeded to do the job correctly correctly. So much so, that, after the successes he had had, the man had an army willing to hail him emperor by the time he was done. Mistakes are warranted but he was not, at all, guaranteed to make it through the next day, yet he pulled it off. There are many smart people, but intelligence doesn't always lead to success. Very few could actually emerge with an emperorship and a legitimate military record all while trying to put his principles into practice while having been born in one of the most conniving families known to Rome. He was given a job and decided to become the job. Succeeding in a way that many try and fail at.
I couldn’t agree more with the high ranking of Domitian. He was actually the one who went away from the Princeps system. A dude who could see that the senate had no use other than gobbling up money, he made the emperor the point of power, whereas Rome was in the past. A true autocrat, but loved by the people and hated by the old, rich senators.
He's one of the examples of the benevolent dictator model of government as a hypothetical top tier government. Unfortunately, as the bulk of this list reveals, you aren't going to get many Domitians over time in charge, which is why that model of government has virtually always lead to bad results.
@@TheGreektrojan oligarchs didn’t like this.
Domitian is also the only emperor who can claim to have been loved by the Praetorians to the extent that they avenged him a couple of years later under Nerva.
You did Aurelian dirty, leaving out the social and religious reforms he put in place, somewhat successfully breaking up corruption in the capital, and as much as he abandoned Dacia, he reconquered Frace, Spain, Egypt and the Levant meaning technically he had the most expansion, it was just of previously conquered territory that had been lost.
Dacia was over the Danube it was a liability to Rome so more of a good call from Aurelian if anything
No if anything he gave him too much credit. Not only did basically all of his reforms fail, but he had terrible succession problems, low trust from his men getting him killed, and the territory he got back were minor rebellions that anyone with a decent army could have done. That's like saying anyone who deals with usurpers conquered the most which you never say because technically by your logic Constantine conquered the whole empire.
@@dariusonly1384 i dont know where you are getting your information from but its incorrect. As according to both the Historia Augusta and Edward Gibbon, his reforms were passed off as Diocletians and were very successful, though they were few, he lacked a successor but since no one wanted to try to fill his shoes it took time to find a fitting emperor, which was far supirior to what had happened prior, and in this time his wife ruled peacefully, he had very high trust with his men, he died because he threatened a corrupt administrator who forged a death warrant for his generals from Aurelian and gave it to said generals, who killed him in a knee jerk reaction they later regretted. To call the Gaullic and Palmyrene empires small is to say the Roman Empire was as such. They were not rebels but had suceeded and where seperate empires, as can be seen by none claiming to be the Augustus. If youre tryna be a contrarian get a better argument, if you actually believe youre correct then i would be dubious of where you recieved your information.
@@duxromanorum9861 You forget that this was after Aurelian had vanquished the Alemanni, Gothic, Palmyrene and some rebelling Roman forces. If you were leading a disorganised state and found out that a general who had vanquished every enemy he had come across to the extent that Aurelian had, you too would look to surrender. War is not always won through battle, and Aurelian won the war with Gallic Rome through mainly his reputation.
Exactly, and his abandonment of Dacia was smart as he recognized how indefensible the province was and he strengthened the Danube border.
"Go read Marcus Aurelius' " is a very good advice, his Meditations is life changing
Massive thumbs up for being one of the few people who realize Domitian did a fantastic job on stabilizing a potentially disastrous path for roman coinage!
@X5J9 Reported for being Mr Epstein
username checks out
Let's face it, if aurelian lasted 20 years the whole world would be speaking Latin.
i actually think that if he lasted longer he wold probably be better than julius caesar and trajan combined
i did not expect to see you here PH
We would be speaking latin on Andromeda VGH... What could have been...
Well, you're using the latin alphabet so
@@Ammi553 no one uses Latin alphabet we use an alphabet derived from Latin but not the Latin one
Pertinax is one of my favorites, when the angry soldiers wanted to kill him, he tried to talk to them, got killed anyway. He has my respect for this move though
That sounds like an insecticide or something.
. . . or maybe a dandruff shampoo?
From what I understand, he actually almost talked them out of it, it was just one angry soldier that went through with killing him. Really can’t blame him for not paying up when there was legitimately NO money left to pay them with (thanks Commodus)
Yeah Pertinax was an absolute gigachad, wish he was higher up on this list
@@samlund8543 like seriously, were the Praetorians that short sighted that they couldn't see how bad the financial crisis was?
I personally think Gordian III should be ranked higher, he lasted for six years on the throne which is quite impressive for a crisis of the third-century emperor.
Not that hard when you're a child puppet "emperor" to the Praetorians. Then the Praetorian prefect died and was replaced by Philip the Arab, who, well, killed the 19 year old Emperor.
Me: "Finally, an emperor tier list"
Spectrum: "All the way up to Theodosius"
Me: "Fuck, this is worse than even stopping at Romulus Augustulus."
For those of you who want to know how Valentenian I died, he got so angry yelling at envoys that he suffered a stroke and dropped dead
Aurelian cant be 7, he did more in five years than most emperors in their lifetimes.
Most emperors in their lifetimes also didnt have the chance to last even 1 year so...
@@Freedmoon44 Mostly because they are bad emperors to get assassinated early into their reign.
So did all the others above him
Are trying to imply that Aurelian was greater than Trajan, who conquered Dacia which Aurelian abandoned? Or greater than Augustus who founded the empire? or Constantine who was by far a greater statesman and General who led his troops at their head not staying safely behind? BTW Constantine started out with Just Britain and Gaul under his rule and ended winning the entire empire and even reconquered Dacia which as said Aurelian abandoned.
Being 7th is already a good result for Aurelian.
@@chrisgrech7992 Conquering Dacia (Romania) wasn't a brilliant move. It over extended the Empire and wasted resources. Abandoning Dacia freed up legions that could be used to protect more critical areas and put down other rebellions. Rome's Dacia campaigns are similar to America screwing around in Afghanistan and eventually having to pull out.
Augustus didn't found the Empire. He overthrew a republic which was already an great imperial power and made himself a dictator. He is not one of the good ones, he is a villain.
Aurelian is my favourite Emperor; would love to see a timeline where he isn't assassinated by a bogus letter written by Eros. Yes, I do agree, he was too OP but that's what made him great!
My man Aurelian is at number 7! Good to see him not sidelined like he is in many roman history courses.
Yup, some people are complaining but well never know how he would’ve gone on. Such a shame to be honest and for such a stupid damn reason (his death)
Poor Vespasian...
This just made me realize most emperor's are absolutely horrible
Like most leaders of most nations.
That's ultimately the problem with a supreme ruler.
You can have 5 amazing rulers, but 1 could undo them all.
Rome had 5 bad emperors for every good one.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 To be honest I think no matter the system of governance you will always have good leaders be outnumbered by the bad ones, or if you are lucky the mediocre.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 Thats the struggle between stability and flexibility.
Just like every political party and leaders in the world.
For some reason whenever I was learning about Rome I always like Domition. After reading up on him when I got older I found he was actually one of the most underrated emperors only cuz of how much the Senate hated him.
Gallienus had his honor unfairly stripped by the senate too.
Domitian, alongside Hadrian, were the emperors who most closely understood the wisdom of Augustus's policies, namely his reluctance to expand the empire further. Trajan was a great administrator and general, but his invasion and conquest of Dacia and Persia were setbacks for the empire in the long term. Persia was not sustainable for Rome to hold and Hadrian was right to abandon it. He also understood the border implications of Dacia (which would first be a big problem about 25-30 years after his death in the Marcomannic wars) and tried to abandon it too, but he faced too much opposition to do so there.
And speaking of Dacia, Domitian almost destroyed Decebalus years before Trajan did, but a usurpation forced him to sue for peace so he could deal with that ASAP. And he was the first emperor to see the wisdom in investing much more in the provinces, an example Hadrian was wise to follow.
"the only reason Nero is hated cuz the Christians hated him" and the Jews... and the Plebs, and the Popularies, and the Senatorial class, and the Roman army and that teenage boy whom he had kidnapped, castrated and forced to live as his female sex slave because he resembled his wife whom he had previously beaten to death in a fit of rage... And anyone who was forced to attend his concerts.
Although the story that he danced and played the fiddle as Rome burnt was definitely not true, because the fiddle hadn't been invented.
based
Poor Sabina
if only I had a time machine, I'd travel back and save Sporus 😔 that poor guy
....and He only got in power because his Mum poisoned Claudius, who was Nice.
Actually the plebeians liked him
“The only reason he’s seen as terrible is because the Christians hated him.”
Being rounded up for execution by someone will definitely affect your opinion of that person.
There's his history with his mother, wives, and potential rival heirs as well.
It's clear enough that the Christians were uncompromising troublemakers. Refusing to pray for the health of the Emperor - they were just looking for a short cut to paradise.
Alot of other Romans hated Nero besides the Christians.
Nero was not the only one to prosecute the christians, Diocletian purged way more people than Nero ever did, christians where a small minority at the time.
@@alexanderhay-whitton4993 you mean they weren’t willing to betray God. If that made them troublemakers so be it.
Good call, placing Aurelian in the top ten. This in and of itself indicates you have something on the ball.
Many positions can be argued round or flat but I agree that Augustus should be a consensus number one and I can’t think of anyone seriously challenging Trajan for the second spot.
All in all really good work.
@SamoaVsEverybody_814 I wouldn't put Diocletian above Claudius and just one slot below Aurelian. Almost everything he tried to do was a failure in the long run
@SamoaVsEverybody_814 I have aurelian at 2...
I was expecting Aurelian to be at least in the top 5, but I can live with him being 7th...
Caesar should be number 1. If he didn't exist, Octavian would not have been an emperor.
@@liviuganea4108 Caesar was never Emperor, he was just Dictator, and since it's a list of Roman emperors, that's the reason he's not on the list.
Victor (died August 388 AD) was a Western Roman emperor from 387 to August 388. He was the son of the magister militum Magnus Maximus, who later became a usurper of the Western Roman Empire, in opposition to Gratian.
To everyone praising Aurelian - yes, was a great general and when Rome was at it's lowest (at the time), he managed to "restore the world".
But he also had a reputation for being very strict and undiplomatic. My guess is that as soon as the waters calmed and he became a politician, rather than a general, he would soon meet the fate of the strict emperors, like Galba.
Or he could become another Diocletian and hold things together by his iron will. But even that doesn't last...
A lot of emperors not being strict was the downfall of the empire. The Romans could take strict as long as the conquests or at least victories kept coming. The Romans were focused as long as there was war, as they were very militaristic (but also smart, unlike Sparta).
Ew did you just compare Aurelian to Galba??? Nah but Fr the timing between Aurelian and galba was extremely different. Galba was an old soldier who was respected in the military and he lived during a time of complete peace in the Roman interior. Aurelian though was the best general of his time. He achieved near mythical status in just 5 years and was seen as a god by his contemporaries. Also you are wrong he was strict but he was definitely not undiplomatic. When he went through the east conquering the palmyrene empire he gave mercy to all of the cities who had betrayed Rome for palmyra and he also gave mercy to Queen Zenobia of palmyra the first time he invaded. When she rebelled again he had to destroy them. Even his death isn’t anywhere similar to how Galba died. Galba got killed by the praetorian guard because they were used to being bribed and pampered by Nero so when Galba came around acting strict and cheap they killed him out of spite. During Aurelian’s time the empire was in constant warfare so as a result and contrary to popular belief the praetorian guard was fulfilling its true purpose and going on campaign with Aurelian as an elite legion. The vast majority of them were incredibly loyal to Aurelian and killed him assassins despite his strictness. The only reason he was even assassinated was because of a single dude. This scribe or official or secretary or whatever he was made a mistake and feared what Aurelian would do to him so he went and lied to some of Aurelian’s officers in the praetorian guard and told them that Aurelian planned to killed them. In desperation they went and killed Aurelian and by the time they realized their mistake it was too late.
He would've probably become as great as Augustus if his fucking accountant didn't come up with the most dumb way of covering a mistake
@@Kunumbah1 DOn't forget Aurelian was like 50 years old by the time he became emperor and had long served in the military and under other Roman Emperors. Also he migt have been strict but he was also very pragmatic (abandoning Dacia which I'm sure must have been a controversial decision especially amongst the more conservative romans) and really disipline and order is really what the empire needed at the time
he was about to march on the persian empire - it was about to be a new height for the roman empire - they probably would've eventually went to war with china.
Nero: *kicks his pregnant wife to death*
This guy: he wasn’t great but yeah lol
attacking pregnant women and killing them has nothing to do with running an empire
Who cares? Didn't impact his administration.
@@Tyrantk2007 Exactly if this was an ethics competition probably Marcus Aurelius could have been on the top on his own for about a 5 seconds video!
Probably didn't happen anyway. More likely just random complications during childbirth, as it happens.
He stopped to death his pregnant wife.
Murdered his own mother ( after she put him in power) because he tired of her being a mother.
Castrated a boy and married him ( because he reminded him of his late wife.
Burned Christians alive so as to provide light for his night parties 🥳
Didn't really rule Rome..( his advisors ruled ) he was too busy walking the streets drunk , getting into brawls...pretending to be a actor or poet , ect. He should have been at the bottom.
I think you’re too forgiving with Nero. His first five years were good but that was because he had very good advisors in Burrus and Seneca early on. When their Burrus died and Seneca’s influence waned he showed himself to be crazy. Not as bad as Caligula but the same thing that happened with commodus and he got no mercy
@@IchBinDeinGott No way, most of the things Nero said the Christians did they didn't do and was mostly him appealing to the Herodian Jews. Which showed to be an ill found loyalty when they would revolt given the first opportunity.
@@aninjathtpwndu Christians at the time were a very small religious cult and that meant they were a easy target for blame.
Also a lot of bad reputation Nero have come from biased sources (especially the Great Fire of Rome) even if his death is absurd, fearing being executed by the Senate he attempted suicide just to not have the courage to do it itself and have someone help him with the absurdity being the Senate was trying to working out a compromise to save the bloodline with his death leading to the Year of Four Emperors.
@@aninjathtpwndu I agree with you, Nero was an awful persecutor of Christians. He also wasn’t liked by other Romans who disliked his thespian antics. It’s not fair to say he’s only remembered badly because Christians hated him.
I don't think Nero gets enough credit for his handling of the Great Fire of Rome. If anything, he was TOO quick and TOO far-sighted in his response, to the point where people assumed he must have caused the fire if he was getting this much good out of it. It seems he really used the opportunity to rebuild Rome for the better--basically into what it is now, in many ways (give or take a few millennia's worth of rewrites). It seems to have become a more picturesque, and far less flammable, imperial city after he was done, with broader streets, less squalor, more marble-er, Greek-ified buildings, and more fire buckets in people's houses. So, basically Nero was no Napoleon, but he was maybe on a par with Napoleon III, who also managed to sculpt Paris into the city we hate to love.
@@d.m.collins1501 Adding to architecture does not make a good emperor
Diocletian gave up his imperial purple and was begged to return. Instead he chose to enjoy the innocent pleasures in life of farming and architecture. When asked why he wouldn’t return he said ‘if only you saw how big and lovely my cabbages are… you would understand.’ Absolute gangster!! B)
Honorable shoutout to Majorian (AKA, Aurelian 2.0) for doing his best to keep the empire together when literally everyone else was trying to break it apart.
Add Flavius Aetius too
@@juliantheapostate8295 and Stilicho! Man literally kicked the shit out of Alaric
Neither Stilicho nor Flavius Aetius were Roman Emperors, both were "Magister Militum". In contrast Majorian was indeed (Western) Roman Emperor.
he said no Western Roman Emperors are you deaf
“77- Elagabalus”
Are you sure you didn’t accidentally order them best to worst?
Yet another heretic scorning the true prophet of the mighty Sun God
We love our femboy sungod emperor, don't we folks?
There is only One Sun God-Emperor and its Aurelian
@@hefik8689 Aurelian was undoubtedly a follower of Elagabalus. Rome's two greatest third century emperors were each given their many military victories by the great Sun God Itself
@@Aloemancer we sure do!
I think Antoninus Pius is underrated.
Hear me out. He listened to the senate, as he had been a senator himself, and although it started with Hadrian, which picked Antoninus exactly with the purpose of making the senate and Princess co-exist again, Antoninus managed it to keep it going. The Senate was so happy with Antoninus that they awarded him the title Pius.
Furthermore, he was probably in the top 3 for emperors effect on the economy. He somehow left Marcus Aurelius 2 billion sestertii, without which Marcus Aurelius reign would have probably not been so good (pandemic and wars).
He was the only emperor that increased the goverment expenditure on the province of Italy, without decreasing those of the provinces. The opposite of what Hadrian did.
He set up on an enourmous building project throughout Italy.
He expanded the grain doll to over 200k, bringing it back to republican time size.
He also expanded the border north in Britannia. Although not for long and finally he put down two large revolts in Egypt and Dacia.
All of this without ever actually leaving the Province of Italia. He extended governorship to good governors, sometimes for a decade.
Most important of all. He was the only emperor not to participate any war whatsoever, and respected Hadrian’s wishes to make Marcus Aurelius emperor, having him educated and participate in politics to ready him for it, had Antoninus not cared, Marcus Aurelius would not have been as well remembered as he is.
I actually believe he might have been probably one of the best 5 emperors. Better then his successor.
Other emperors overshadow him because of their foreign success. However few emperors were as successful in demoestic politics, peraphs only Augustus truly competing.
"Of Antoninus there is no history, for he had almost no faults and committed no crimes."
Thank you! Your hard and arduous work is so appreciated!
15:52 Tiberius
16:17 Claudius
16:27 Diocletian (?)
16:53 Aurelian
17:25 Marcus Aurelius
17:44 Domition + Fixed Inflation
18:16 Hadrian + Defense + Drills + Provincials + Succession Plan
18:37 Constantine + Solved So many problems
18:54 Trajan + CEO Superior
19:13 Augustus + The Founder
No Vespasian?
@@hannibalburgers477 fat
Hadrian was great until his boyfriend died, then he became a second Caligula.
@@hannibalburgers477 I was thinking the same. Dude is stupid and uneducated if Vespasian is not in Top 5
The first time I've ever seen a video made by a channel with less that a thousand, scratch that, less that 10 thousand subs get into my recommended. For you getting blessed by the algorithm and for your dedication to the roman empire, you have earned a sub from me.
Saw this video in my recommended too. Expecting a lot more views to come within the next few weeks.
Same here
glad Claudius made it to the Top 10!! i feel like he gets a bit overshadowed at times but he was a rare example of an Emperor who actually bettered the quality of life of the plebeians
Thank you so much i always wanted to see which all were the best. Thank you for so painstakingly compiling this. I've downloaded this video for my refence as well. You saved me and atleast a thousand others so much work. Thank you
I agree with you with your high rating of Gallienus. Edward Gibbon had a poor opinion of him, but I always felt Gibbon was unfair. Gallienus really had his work cut out for him, including multiple usurpers and his father being captured by the Persians, and he did reasonably well considering the circumstances.
Gibbon is super overrated and one of the few things I agree with modern historians about is how he shouldn’t be used as the main source for the historical narrrative of Rome.
Gibbon was bending Roman History to support his views on the (supposed) moral decline of the British Empire.
Basically, a lot of Gibbons views on all the caesars can be dismissed entirely purely because of how dated his work is. Most modern academics would almost entirely reject his work as a source unless it's in a historiographical context
@@matpaterson8830 As a work of literature, it's first-rate, but, as a history, the author's biases are fairly plain and we've learned a lot more about ancient Rome since it was written, in particular archaeology was hardly even a science in the 18th century.
If I was able to chose one Roman Emperor to meet in person somehow, I'd probably pick Vetranio. He just seems chill.
Commodus: Acts slow so he doesn't become Emporer.
Protarian Guard: Appoints him Emporer because they think he is slow.
Commodus: "Really?!"
Commodus did 3-d underwater backgammon space chess against the praetorians.....and it actually worked
Do you mean Claudius?
Would anyone really desire to be an EMPORER?
@@lochinvar50 Depends on the time period.
That was Claudius. He acted slow for years so that Caligula wouldn't have him killed, because he would see him as too pathetic to go after his rule. Claudius did a Prestige on everyone.
Also Domitian had the most effective bureaucracy, was one of the only emperors to crack down on corruption and replaced the nepotism of his predecessors with a more merit based system
Before watching the video.
My picks for top 5 Emperors:
Augustus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Aurelian, and Constantine I.
After watching the video.
Hey, I got 3 out of 5 correct! 😎👌
I get surprised when i didn't saw Marcus Aurelius on number one
@@acelmo7007 tbf Augustus has done alot of sh** to deserve his first place and so did Trajan, Marcus Aurelius was great, but against the guy who litteraly founded the empire lived a lo’g and successfull time as emperor and made a Roman golden age out of an era filled with civil wars called the republic, and the guy who brought Rome to its greatest extand and held it all together for quite a while too, nearly everyone is beat
You didn't mention Hadrian's Roman-jewish war, where he literally Deleted the Judean's from the game
I'm uhh sure there was a valid reason to not include it....
@@jkee9760 I don't understand?
@@thomasjohnston8970 youtube
Dovahhatty by any chance?
@@marangod2347 probably
I only knew about 5 emperors going into this but still enjoyed watching the whole thing.
@spectrum I appreciate you put Tacitus higher than the middle. For a man who by all accounts was a senior citizen, he died leading his troops against a barbarian incursion. He did nothing to dishonor the office, and liked to collect glass items.
However, he did end the interregnum and thus ended a return to the republic.
I kinda like how it’s strictly about how they were for the empire. It’s not about personality or how evil they were, it’s just we’re they good or not for the empire. Neat.
Gonna be honest, probably all or most of these men would have been utter douchebags to hand out with. Arrogant, noble, aggressive, brutal, temperamental. They look good today because they died thousands of years ago and there have a chain of historians who keep calling them good emperors. They were all dicks
My man Domitian finally getting some respect!
not as much respect as his father deserved.
Domitian can never get enough respect.
Great list, imo.
I'd put Tiberius and Diocletian even higher on it, and Vespasian... Well, on the list at all (and with a very high placing as well), but overall I never felt like your ranking was flawed - therefore, again, great list!
Yeah what's the point of leaving Vespasian out?
Where is my homeboy Vespasian :'((( He deserves to be in the top 10 for real! Not a shiny character, but brought peace and stability, also a very down to earth guy with great sense of humor
I've seen so many of these and this is the first one that I can get behind top to bottom. I was especially delighted that he cared for the monetary policies. Those had a much longer lasting influence on the well-being of the empire than more attention-grabbing fluff that most other rankings focus on.
It’s missing Vespasian entirely
@@therealclp he did make a video and had he been here he would have been 11th
Vespasian should be second on this list. Not only did he resolve the Year of the Four Emperors that could've become a civil war like the Crisis of the Third Century, he was just as good an administrator as Augustus and more capable militarily. He also had a good heir and ruled for a long time.
definately top 10
definitely top 5
Why is he not here again? Kinda forgot
Domitian is one very underrated dude..a micromanager and strenghthened roman economy..
from what I've read so far I like Domitian, Tiberius and Elagabal most :p
I disagree with some of your placements, but top-notch list! The podium is absolutely on-point. The only change I’d make is to have Constantine be above Trajan, but it's those three for sure.
Glad you put Domitian so far up, the golden age of the Roman Empire really started under Vespasian and Domitian carried it on quite handily, fixing the economy was insane on his end, really saved everyone a lot of problems. I would knock him down a few points for pissing off the senate however, this lead to his death which could have lead to another civil war if Nerva hadn't been able to grab control of power. Good emperors do not give people more reasons to assassinate them
Tell that to litteraly everyone who wasnt Augustus because i think they didnt learn that pissing people off and not getting rid of them first is a problem (except that one guy who suicded himself, he knew he was the problem i guess)
Also the Flavian dinasty was the only one without nutjobs..
@@CommonSenz Nah Domitian was definitely a nutjob he was just a capable one.
7:38 “this dude was probably the most forgettable” victor was so forgettable that we forgot to forget about him
Marcus Aurelius his whole mindset was maintaining and keeping order, improving the quality of life. And he did exactly that, respect his fellow human etc. It depends what you think is good.. perhaps Alexander the great was an Amazing ruler, from Macedon eyes. Not so much from Turk eyes. Marcus was a 10/10 emperor from his perspective and his goals
That's almost verbatim what I came to say after seeing the list.
By my metric he should be first. He maintained peace and stability for his own people.
He was the best on a individual level. When ranking by how good they were for the whole, he was a bit further down
Really the only thing bad about Marcus Aurelius was for having a piece of shit son
He’s the one and only emperor
@@klawschafer7425 agree
While the language was a little rough for me, I enjoyed seeing how you would do these and the little snippets of info on some of those emperors I know next to nothing about lol. Thank you for the video!
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Hadrian one of my personal favs along with Auralien. the infastructure & Defensive focus made Hadrian favored by the common folk more so, and Auralien really pulled that empire out of the trash!
And, as I understand, his reign was a really peaceful one for the common people.
But wasn’t he the emperor that started the Jewish Diaspora? At least I think it was him
@@niccolocaramori7288 That's why he was one of the best.
@@brightblackgrouse6236 Lol
@@brightblackgrouse6236 that help spread Abrahamic religions around.
"Nero wasn't that bad, just mediocre"
Really, I've only ever heard bad things about him so I can't wait to see what he says abou... and he moved on to the next one without elaborating. Genuinely curious why you think Nero wasn't that bad though, considering the large amount of atrocities he committed.
Honestly I’m just surprised Hadrian was rated higher than Nero. Nero did a ton of awful stuff (poor Sporus), but what Hadrian did to Jerusalem was… god damn, man.
(Also there are some sources claiming that Nero led the relief and rebuilding efforts after the great fire, and instituted building codes to keep it from happening again, but the sources are not contemporary. Ironically, the same problem is for the reverse: a lot of Nero’s worse actions are written about by sources like Cassius Dio, who lived hundreds of years after Nero and may have been mythologizing or demonizing previous emperors. And, at risk of offending some people, Christians do have a really bad habit of historical revisionism. Just as an example right here: most people remember Nero as being worse than Hadrian, when Hadrian, again, was… well.)
As an emperor he wasn't bad. he lead rome Ok but as a person he was scum
@@landrylongacre6391 So what you're saying is, Nero was a terrible as they say... everyone else was just much worse
@@Nobythulhu What Hadrian did to Judea was horrendous but from a cold, administrative, Roman perspective it wasn't a bad thing. The Jews had thrown 3 major rebellions before that which were all very costly for the empire and from then on the province never gave them any trouble. This list is ranking emperors based on how competently they could rule the empire, not moral character and Hadrian was objectively a good emperor
@@Nobythulhu lol nah justified
Happy to see someone giving Gallienvs what he deserves, he's criminally underrated
@FemonicRBLX take your meds
This has been extremely entertaining thank you
I am very glad you placed Domitian to the number five spot .He deserves to be number five . But I think Aurelian should be three . What he did in five short years was miraculous . He was the Sandy Koufax of Roman Emperors.
Found the Mike Duncan fan
@@samlund8543 indeed.
You tease us with the most hilarious death of all roman emperors but then don’t actually say what happened 😭
Valentinian l?
He went so angry, yelling at the Quadi envoy, he got stroke and dies.
The other guy sufficated off the fumes of his newly painted bedroom
@@KyriosHeptagrammaton LOL. holy fuck
@@Jacen436987 yup that guy was Jovian!
_"Did I play the game well? Then applaud as I exit."_ -Augustus.
The most influential man to ever walk the Earth.
Hmmm...Jesus? Alexander? I'm just talking outta my ass but maybe? I guess you could add Muhammed the prophet to the list
@@TheBfutgreg there's more
@@TheBfutgreg Jesus wasn't really very influential.. I mean, head had like at most ~20 people who liked him. it was his followers who did the work
pretty sure some dude named jesus has more influence atleast in the modern day
@@th1cc Look, Augustus laid the foundations for the modern 'Western World'. Which in turn, influenced most of the rest of the world. His 'Pax Romana' is probably the greatest single achievement of any singular individual. You can say Jesus or Muhammad, but they just have their own followers, within their own religion. Their religions embraced ideas that Augustus started, whether they want to admit it, or not.
Laws, democracy, taxes, the arts, you name it... Augustus was the modern originator. Maybe not the first. But in modern terms, he did it the best.
I like Jesus, in all fairness. But, I'm sorry, on the grand scale, he isn't even close.
*Interestingly the "plebs" actually loved Caligula (a nick name meaning "Little Boots"), and was very popular among them. When Caligula, Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, (his real name), was assassinated the people of Rome rioted. It was only with the nobles and the aristocracy in the Senate that Caligula vented his wrath with. Maybe he saw them as snobs and elites which would explain why he antagonized them and also explain why the ordinary people liked him so much. I mean , who wouldn't like to see the ruling political class taken down a peg or three...even today?*
A lot of emperors considered as "tyrans" were in fact loved by the plebs and the common people
@@lukajacoby3129 Look at Domitian who after he died was perceived as a tyrant and even had his name condemned to Oblivion by the Senate and that negative perception of him remained for years even by sources like Tacitus and Cassius Dio.
Well still he did destroyed rome 's economy in only 4 years
Great list.
I might disagree with Elagabulus as the worst (although I agree he was one of the worst). But the Emperor was not really evil enough to be truly decadent. Many of the "crimes" he was guilty of in the eyes of his subjects would be seen as enlightened today. His treatment of slaves and prostitutes as people, not allowing executions without trial, his rampant homosexuality, and worst of all in his subjects' eyes, allowing women an equal voice in government.
But at that time, these made for a bad ruler. Personally Id put Commodus last but I respect your list. nice work.
Great name tho
Loving Victor at 58, the equivalent of submitting a blank sheet for an exam and not getting last in the class!
Who the flying fuck was that guy fr, never heard of him until today
@@MrWepx-hy6sn You can't expect to know every Roman Emperor if you're not a total history/rome nerd. Nothing shocking but learning is always nice.
@@hunted_man4035 i know, but who the fuck was Victor? Like all other emperors or at least most have something to say for themselves lol
@@MrWepx-hy6sn Lmao I don't know
@@hunted_man4035 exactly
it makes sense that most emperors were bad as the bad ones tended to have short reigns. the good ones tended to last longer and were therefore fewer in number.
Props for ranking Tiberius so high. Can you imagine having to follow Augustus? I do feel sorry for Postumus, though if I had that name I'd be worried about my chances too. Probably wasn't such a hilarious pun back then though.
Tiberius was a pretty good administrator, in fact the bureaucracy he set up ran things so well, he was basically able to retire (Capri) and not even worry about administration.
Problem is Tiberius seemed to lack a drive for greatness and charisma. I suspect he was a melancholic introvert, which later turned into paranoid recluse. He would have been a great co-emperor handling things back home.
I APPROVE OF THIS VIDEO, FELLOW CITIZEN. GODS PROTECT YOU
Praise Holy Caligula!
Cheers for the conqueror of Dacia!
Ave Imperator
I couldn't agreed more on Domitian's ranking. Besides, I think there's more to be discovered, re-evaluate and be said about an emperor who wasn't crazy or paranoid in a sense of Caligula's manners! I think that Domitian was typically authoritarian and very eccentric, but his record has showed us to be keen in justice and a driving force when it comes to economy and of the overall stability of the Roman Empire in the late 1st century B.C
Hadrian in the top five, good, there shall be no bloodshed today.
😏