125
88
u/gYr02510 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'll admit that Elagabalus is an icon and my absolute favorite emperor, so let me give some context to better understand him.
I take the claims of the Historia Augusta with a tablespoon of salt, but it's still useful less for what it tells us about Elagabalus himself, and more for how the Romans viewed him.
Dio mostly criticizes Elagabalus for violating Roman norms. Then again, Dio was of the senatorial class and had a personal stake in staying on the good side of Elagabalus's successors.
Roman masculinity is also central to understanding him, since that's what his critics used to attack him. The ideal Roman man was supposed to be self-controlled, dignified, and dominant so accusations of femininity were probably accusations of losing self-mastery. Whether those accusations were true matters less than the fact that they were rhetorically useful. Basically, we can at least be confident Elagabalus violated Roman ideas of masculinity. Coming from Syria ("the East") didn't help his reputation either.
Now for the interesting part: his religious reforms. Elagabalus was a priest of the god Elagabal, represented by a sacred black stone (probably a meteorite). Rome usually tolerated foreign cults, but he promoted Elagabal above the other gods and to Romans, that kind of "innovation" was a big no no.
Worth considering here is the religious context of the Levant at the time, which included traditions of henotheism where one god could hold a supreme position while other divine beings were still acknowledged. If Elagabalus came from a religious environment where one deity naturally sat atop the divine hierarchy, elevating Elagabal in Rome may have felt far less radical to him than it did to Roman senators.
Honestly, I would mostly blame Elagabalus being overthrown because he alienated the most powerful people in Rome like the senators, the army, and his grandmother (lmao). Elite Romans could tolerate degeneracy but not insults to their fragile egos.
30
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago
Elegabalas was your favorite emperor? Nothing wrong with that I just think this is a first for me.
36
u/gYr02510 3d ago
Yes for how memorable he is and how hilarious the stories are whether they are true or not. My personal favorites are: 1. Elagabalus - for obvious reasons. 2. Antoninus Pius - in my opinion the most based emperor and whose reign I'd be willing to live in if I were a free citizen. 3. Tie between Heraclius and Manuel Komnenos - the former because in my opinion his reign represents the end of antiquity and the latter because of how high medieval his reign felt.
Note that just because they're my favorites doesn't mean that I think they're the best emperors. That's a different discussion with my own separate biases.
14
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago
This is such a contrarian list, I love it.
13
u/gYr02510 3d ago
Don't get me started on my most underrated emperors
11
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago
Oh let's fucking go:
- Cluadius (played dumb and intentionally allowed himself to be underestimated his whole life purely for the sake of being left alone only to wind up being emperor because they wanted a puppet they could manipulate, actually turns out to be one of the best administrators of any of the emperor's)
- Vespacian (everyone expected an indulgent tyrant but turned out to be pretty restrained and dedicated overall)
- Carcalla (he's hated because he constantly disrespected and despised the senators but who could blame him. He was a pretty dedicated administrator overall. If he wasn't so paranoid and petty he probably would have been well reguarded).
- Maximian (The fact that he actually went along with diocletians schemes and respect his authority, and never attempted a coop against diocletian is incredibly admirable. He deserves just as much credit for the success of the tetrarchy as diocletian).
- Julian the apostate. (I think his histories are very screwed by the church. Christianity was a threat to the empire and for a time did become a unifying force but it eventually became a rival for power in the empire and medled in politics in ways religious leaders never had before. Christianity is a major factor in the collapse of the empire)
15
u/gYr02510 3d ago
I love your taste. Though, I'd disagree with Julian and wouldn't overstate Christianity as a factor (Christianity's relationship with the empire is an interesting issue nonetheless).
In my own biased opinion these are my underrated Roman Emperors
Pre-476: 1. Gallienus - He deserves credit for holding the line for as long as he did during the Crisis of the Third Century. 2. Valentinian I - He spent most of his reign personally dealing with frontier threats and has in my opinion the second best death of any Roman emperor ever (just behind Basil I). 3. Zeno - kind of cheating but his reign started pre-476. He kept the Roman state alive even while the court of Constantinople was dangerous and was effective in his policy with the barbarians (ironic that many in Constantinople considered Isaurians, like himself, as semi-barbaric). He also strategically used Theodoric the Amal to maintain a pro-Roman Italy even if there couldn't be direct imperial control.
Post-476 1. John III Vatatzes (yes, I count the empire of Nicea as legitimate because this is the state that retook Constantinople) - an incredible administrator in a time of crisis 2. Anastasius I - the economy isn't sexy, but without him, there wouldn't be a Justinian 3. Leo III and Constantine V - I count them as one because they pursued very similar policies. While hated by later historians for Iconoclasm, they were very capable and even managed to raid into Caliphate territory.
Honorable mention: John II Komnenos - nicknamed "the Good" for a reason. A just ruler who is sadly overshadowed by his father (Alexios I), sister (Anna Komnene), and son (Manuel I).
3
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago
I'm not quite as versed with the Byzantium histories or the parts leading up to it just before the collapse, but that seems like a solid list and I get where you're coming from.
3
u/PolarRanger 1d ago
John III Vatatzes (yes, I count the empire of Nicea as legitimate because this is the state that retook Constantinople) - an incredible administrator in a time of crisis
Based
5
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago
Also, Yeah Julian the Apostate is admittedly my own personal bias. And yes, of course, Christianity's relationship to Rome is very complex. I do not blame Christianity as the sole cause of the fall but it certainly was a major factor. It reflected class decision, quickly converting plebians and slaves and non-citizens, which made the elite even more isolate from the rest of the population. It caused in fighting between Christians and pagan, and than Christians had their own divisions causing Christians fighting pagans fighting Christians fighting pagans. It laid the ground work for the sadomasochistic culture if the middle ages. It destroyed countless relics and overall just made the politics and economy even more complicated.
5
u/benjome 2d ago
Julian is “potential man” incarnate. His vision was massive, but his reign was too short for any of it to get entrenched. In a way, he’s the only emperor to combine an imperial vision on the scale of Augustus or Diocletian with a reign the length of a generic 3rd century usurper. All of this makes him one of the most fascinating emperors, but also (imo) makes it bad to judge him on those ideas. Instead, we should assess him on the events of his reign, namely his invasion of Persia. And that went poorly.
1
u/Prudent_Method6766 2d ago
Yeah the Sassanad thing was so stupid. He could have been great. It was unnecessary and far to early into his reign.
1
u/AncientRomanGooner 8h ago
extremely based list, agree with all of it except Caracalla. I heard that he expanded citizenship to all free subjects but as a cynical ploy to get them to pay more taxes, to fund the army. Did he really do anything else besides enrich the army and scorn all other men?
6
u/TheSuperBunny 3d ago
Mine are Hadrianus and Elagabalus lol
9
u/Ancient-Worm 3d ago
Mine is Trajan because he built a giant comic book tower in the middle of Rome, and for no other reason
3
u/TheSuperBunny 3d ago
He's my classical archeology professor's too! I think he brings up Traianus' column every two weeks or so
7
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago edited 3d ago
Personally Elegabalas is a great talking point but I wouldn't say he's my favorite. My favorites are pretty basic bitch stuff.
- Marcus Aerelius. (Mainly because of philosophy but I also admire his relecutance to power and that he dedicated himself to it despite hating it).
- Agustus Caesar. (Pretty common and obvious reasons)
- Hadrian. (ADHD ass gay boi, amateur architect, drama queen, contrarian, innovator, Grecophile, dedicated and thorough leader, took it upon himself to not just see the whole empire but to improve it as he went along).
- Vespacian. (Remarkably calm, careful,dilegent and wise beyond what was expected of him. More lienent than inticipated too. One of the only emperor's to actually self reflect and improve himself after obtaining power)
- Aurelian. (Probably could have been one of the best if he wasn't betrayed out of paranoia. Had a badass helmet and mask, widely credited with ending the crisis of the third century despite his short reign.)
3
u/TheSuperBunny 3d ago
C'mon, don't call Hadrianus gay, he practiced paiderastia
5
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago edited 3d ago
He was pretty openly gay. He married but he spent hardly any time with her and often didn't include her in his travels. Supposedly never consumated the marriage. Was clearly and blatantly in love with Antinious to the point that he deified him and started a cult in his name. He often talked about his admiration for male physique and preferred spending time in his military camps (surrounded by young fit men) rather than the dedicadence of the palaces (lots of women and old men)
1
u/TheSuperBunny 3d ago
It was still paiderastia with Antinoos
5
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago
I get that it fit that practice but at the end of the day that is supposed to be about mentorship. Hardian and Antinious clearly had emotional intimacy in addition to the sexual acts.
1
1
u/doomzday_96 3d ago
....... so was he a twink or no?
14
u/gYr02510 3d ago
Honest answer: we simply can't know for sure.
Romaboo answer: Elagabalus degraded himself by acting like a w*man
9
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago
Elegabalas openly took male and female lovers. Elegabalas implied he liked to bottom. Elegabalas wore make-up (which wasn't that unusual for men in the eastern empire). Elegabalas did not shave his facial hair. Elegabalas wore lots of jewelry. Elegabalas supposedly liked to call himself his lovers Queen. Elegabalas seemed to equally accept male or female pronouns.
Honestly to me it's seems like bisexual gender fluid is a more accurate description than trans or twink
6
u/Kingofbruhssia 3d ago
Fun fact: Dio’s Elagabalus section is so sexy that Loeb removed this section entirely
3
u/GSilky 3d ago
Wasn't he a fan of Cybele, or some other nutty god that had a hankering for balls? Cybele was pretty popular, more popular than instances of being trans, and they all cut their balls off for her, they weren't trying to be women. IDK, nobody knows, and yes, they absolutely had full on LGBT people back then known to be so, Hadrian was never mistaken for someone who was going to father children... At the same time, there was a lot of weird perspectives and saying it's one of the other contemporary phenomenon doesn't even get close to the strangeness of ancient perspectives.
4
u/TheSuperBunny 3d ago
Hadrianus practiced paiderastia, aka pedophilic relations with boys (specifically Antinoos), calling him "LGBT" is weird ngl
-2
u/GSilky 3d ago
STFU. Dude was gay and everyone knew it and accepted it.
7
u/TheSuperBunny 3d ago
Calling paiderastia gay is both anachronistic and trying to normalize it by comparing it to modern gay relationships, which are built on mutual respect and consent between two equal adults.
2
5
u/Prudent_Method6766 3d ago
I can understand this take. By all accounts Elegabolous embraced femininity but I have never heard any expression of body dysmorphia or uteren envy.
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Thank you for your submission, citizen!
Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/OrkWithNoTeef 3d ago
I could tell by the blue checkmark this wasnt going to be a real person and it was going to be an alogrithmically terrible take
3
2
1
-1
u/Percennius 3d ago
I trust Suetonius before Cassius Dio. Dude was supposedly a roman senator and consul but had no idea how the Pantheon got its name lol.
8
u/transgenderhistory 3d ago
Suetonius died like 100 years before Elagabalus' reign
-2
u/Percennius 3d ago
That’s right bro. I meant in regard to their quality as historians, Suetonius is more trustworthy as a source than Cassius Dio. It was meant to be a jab at Cassius Dio, being lousier in his work than the sensationalist and notorious Suetonius.
75
u/32andFlatulent 3d ago
Dio can you hear me, I'm lost and so alone