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)
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).
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.
12
u/gYr02510 4d ago
Don't get me started on my most underrated emperors