Let's rank the (Western) Roman emperors!

[Geriander]

3. He did succeed in reigning in Germanicus. If it was just for him, he would have bled the Legions dry in Germany for his personal glory.
.

Or established the border on the Elbe that Augustus envisioned! While he had some bad luck with storms, Germanicus seems to have been doing quite well militarily in Germany. We could have a Romance Speaking Germany today if not for Tiberius. So much kinder to the ears.
Continuing to grow up in army camps may also have helped to avoid whatever went wrong with Caligula.

 

[viola]

My understanding is that Caligula attempted to enforce full fledged Despotism and Absolutism on a Rome that still took the Republican institutions pretty seriously even as the Empire made them largely ceremonial, therefore he became greatly unpopular, was violently overthrown and was later depicted by the Senatorial class as an insane lunatic (and most Roman historians came from the Senatorial class, hence his depictions in popular history).

 

[Geriander]

My understanding is that Caligula attempted to enforce full fledged Despotism and Absolutism on a Rome that still took the Republican institutions pretty seriously even as the Empire made them largely ceremonial, therefore he became greatly unpopular, was violently overthrown and was later depicted by the Senatorial class as an insane lunatic (and most Roman historians came from the Senatorial class, hence his depictions in popular history).

It's not something invented in "popular history" but rather the only semi-contemporary accounts we have. There is good reason to believe that the historians were hostile to him and that they may have recorded a lot of Senatorial slander but we can only speculate as to what is true or not. The same goes for most of the "bad" Emperors. The Julio-Claudian dynasty sure had an unusual concentration of sexual deviants if the sources are to be believed. Three out of the five can't be discussed in detail according to forum rules. This may be a case of bad luck or it could be the Senatorial class smearing their memories.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Regarding bad mouthing Nero got it really hard too.

 

[Yakman]

Continuing to grow up in army camps may also have helped to avoid whatever went wrong with Caligula.

yup. military service works wonders for mental health. really truly.

oh wait.

 

[Geriander]

yup. military service works wonders for mental health. really truly.

oh wait.

Well among Roman emperors a military career seems to have been a better bet for mental health than a palace upbringing.

Given what we are told about Tiberius and what he got up to at Capri, being sent to live there for six years as a child could certainly have scarred Caligula more than life in a military camp as the commander's son.

 

[Madvillain21]

Augustus 10
Trajan 9
Hadrian 8
Marcus Aurelius 7
Constantine the Great 6
Antoninus Pius 5
Diocletian 4
Vespasian 3
Claudius 2
Aurelian 1

 

[Cleon]

Caligula is the best, his sister is hot.

 

[Eusebio]

Regarding bad mouthing Nero got it really hard too.

Nero was one of the most innovative rulers of the ancient world, as emperor he attempted counter-cyclical public works projects and was massively popular with the Roman people. His historical reputation is like if all we knew about FDR was written by Yankee business leaders who had him couped and murdered.

 

[demanvanwezel]

My understanding is that Caligula attempted to enforce full fledged Despotism and Absolutism on a Rome that still took the Republican institutions pretty seriously even as the Empire made them largely ceremonial, therefore he became greatly unpopular, was violently overthrown and was later depicted by the Senatorial class as an insane lunatic (and most Roman historians came from the Senatorial class, hence his depictions in popular history).

I believe this as well, the "soldiers attacking the sea"-thing was meant to be a public humiliation for mutinous legionaries
als the made a horse a concul may as well be a signal to the senate "what you guys are saying has less significance then the hinicking of my horse" or just a deliberate powerplay to show them who's boss "I'm literally putting my horse in the highest place you can get to and there's nothing you can do to stop me"

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Say what you want but this horse thing left an impression

 

[Avernite]

Say what you want but this horse thing left an impression

Glitterhoof :swoon:

 

[Sabotage13]

Well among Roman emperors a military career seems to have been a better bet for mental health than a palace upbringing.

Given what we are told about Tiberius and what he got up to at Capri, being sent to live there for six years as a child could certainly have scarred Caligula more than life in a military camp as the commander's son.

As a counter example I present to you the entire Severan dynasty.

 

[AjayAlcos]

I'd probably put Maximinus Thrax as my most favourite worst emperor.

He would've been better suited as a bodyguard rather than ruler given his reputed size. Fate had a very different purpose for that Goliath however.

*Sigh* alas...

 

[Geriander]

As a counter example I present to you the entire Severan dynasty.

Septimus diesn’t seem to have made any list of ”bad emperors” here and his sons did have palace upbringings.

 

[Semper Victor]

Septimus diesn’t seem to have made any list of ”bad emperors” here and his sons did have palace upbringings.

I don’t like rankings, so I won’t post one. But to me, Septimius Severus was a truly nefarious ruler. He and his son were guilty to a great degree for the empowering of the military that led directly to the military anarchy of the III century. And through their massive bribes and pay rises to the military they also wrecked the imperial fiscus and precipitated the final crisis of the Augustan currency system. And all just for the sake of ensuring the support of the army for their respective bids for power.

 

[Gil galad]

Domitian seems to have had a bad reputation what with him being damned by the senate and all, but he doesn't seem to bad of an emperor from what i've read, above average even.

 

[Denkt]

I don’t like rankings

I Agree, to me all of them are simply people who had their strengths and weakness but in the end one person can only simply do so much and it seems much of an emperors reputation was outside of their Control. Some of them like Augustus was probably very lucky (or unlucky?) to be alive just at the right moment while others was pretty much doomed. In the end it was other people who wrote about the emperors and some of them was made into good ones and some was made into bad ones which to me seems to be tied into politics, often murdered emperors was made into bad ones even if they was no worse than their predecessors or successors while others was made into good ones even if they are simply a single person whose success is built on the work of other persons that are maybe no longer remembered.

Only way I could really give a ranking would be if I had a time machine or something like that and could exactly see Everything that happened at the time and after that make my judgement..

 

[trybald]

Well among Roman emperors a military career seems to have been a better bet for mental health than a palace upbringing.

Given what we are told about Tiberius and what he got up to at Capri, being sent to live there for six years as a child could certainly have scarred Caligula more than life in a military camp as the commander's son.

What we know about Tiberius' stay on Capri is actually nothing more than marketplace gossip, much alike today's outlandish stories about lives of modern day politicians or celebrities.

Caligula seemed perfectly fine after he returned from the island. His apparent madness, if there was actually any, was a result of his sudden illness a few months after he ascended onto the throne.

 

[demanvanwezel]

I Agree, to me all of them are simply people who had their strengths and weakness but in the end one person can only simply do so much and it seems much of an emperors reputation was outside of their Control. Some of them like Augustus was probably very lucky (or unlucky?) to be alive just at the right moment while others was pretty much doomed. In the end it was other people who wrote about the emperors and some of them was made into good ones and some was made into bad ones which to me seems to be tied into politics, often murdered emperors was made into bad ones even if they was no worse than their predecessors or successors while others was made into good ones even if they are simply a single person whose success is built on the work of other persons that are maybe no longer remembered.

Only way I could really give a ranking would be if I had a time machine or something like that and could exactly see Everything that happened at the time and after that make my judgement..

let's take the emperor valerian for example, he's at -9 for the moment, he inherited massive internal problems (which he was partly at fault of, in a way he was the number 2 of gallus when he was killed by his legionaires in favour of aemilianus, so 2 choices, surrender to new emperor and be executed and watch another wana-be emperor rise from his ranks or press on to become emperor himself), revolts in gaul, a gothic invasion and a persian invasion
so he send his son west to deal with the revolts in gaul and he himself went east to fend off the persians, on his way there it's said that he ran into the goths, apparantly there are no proper sources but the goths weren't seen in the empire for another 20-some years
then his army got the plague and then the persians arrived, surrounded him and his remaining legionaires and he was captured

looking at all this, how is any of this his own fault?
yes, his realm saw some of the worst catastrophies of the roman world which makes it a candidate for -9 for the times he lived in but I doubt it was because of his lack of abilities
you might as well say: "I take points of titus because of the vesuvius errupting"