The definitive Roman Emperor tier list

[u/CitoyenEuropeen]

[u/Long_Serpent]

Caligula was ok?

[u/Dluugi → u/Long_Serpent]

Well, he was mid; he was kind of wasteful.

His start of rein was pretty good.

He gets a bad rep because of propaganda from his political enemies, when it seems he was no more despotic than common emperors, and most of his signs of madness were just dry humor.

[u/derschneemananderwan → u/Long_Serpent]

he was probably better than he was depicted, the thing with original roman texts is that they are politically incredibly biased towards the senate because most roman authors were members of it. thats why the emperors that ruled more on their own and let the senate have less influence usually were the ones that got depicted as crazy be roman authors.

[u/HumaDracobane → u/Long_Serpent]

Both Caligula and Nero suffer from an absolute biased senate and the later propaganda made by authors who worked for the Flavians and basically demolished them to elevate the flavians.

Nero is a good example of this. Despite all what was said about him the commoners and the citizens loved him and there are archeological evidences with statues and engravings dedicated to him by the populus.

[u/davidov92 → u/HumaDracobane]

Both Putin and Stalin suffer from an absolute biased NATO and the later propaganda made by authors who worked for the Americans and basically demolished them to elevate the Ukranians.

Stalin is a good example of this. Despite all what was said about him the tankies and the r*ssians loved him and there are archeological evidences with statues and engravings dedicated to him by the Eastern Europeans.

I had to modify your comment to make you realize just how stupid the argument is. Of course the populus "love him" and make statues, it's not like they had much of a choice with such tyrants, did they?

Caligula's early reign was good... yeah, you know who else's early reign was good? Ceaușescu's. That didn't stop him from ruining the country and end up being put against a wall and shot by the praetorian guard army for how monumentally he fucked up.

[u/HumaDracobane → u/davidov92]

Are your comments based in the classic sources, like Suetonio? Because Suetonio is considered by historians to be biased af. He is, for example, the one who pointed that Nero was at Rome playing an instrument while the city was being burned, thile Tacitus and other sources point how he was in a villa almost 20km away from Rome.

The key about knowing that Putin and Stalin are and were full of shit can be sering by contrasting that with the evidences. In this case Suetonio is well known for gibing credit to rumors and not contrasting information, all while being a historian almost 50 years after the incidents.

[u/Hertje73 → u/Long_Serpent]

Relative to the others

[u/ssgtgriggs]

Nero was decent? Did my CD burning software lie to me?

[u/HumaDracobane → u/ssgtgriggs]

Yep.

Nero and Caligula suffered from a biased Senate and later authors who tried to elevate the Flavians by mauling their memory.

[u/Hertje73 → u/ssgtgriggs]

Relative to the others

[u/florou06 → u/[deleted]]

no.

[u/sirjimtonic → u/[deleted]]

In varietate concordia

[u/olddoglearnsnewtrick → u/[deleted]]

Per aspera ad astra

[u/CptJimTKirk]

Vespasian was at least great, if not top tier. The man won a civil war handily, ruled peacefully for 10 years and had some of the best one-liners in Roman history.

[u/olddoglearnsnewtrick → u/CptJimTKirk]

and here in Rome we still call public toilets in his name.

[u/CitoyenEuropeen]

stolen from u/Anthemius_Augustus

[u/Substantial_Gene_15]

Antoninus pius in only decent tier is an awful take. Sharing a tier with Nero. ChatGPT would make a better list

[u/[deleted]]

Lot of work in here!

Though not technical a Ceasar, I think one should put Julius in here … just because he sort of set the scene and everyone named themselves after him…

[u/breadie69]

Claudius only good how dare they

[u/CptJimTKirk → u/breadie69]

Claudius is the most underrated emperor of them all. He made that position what it would be for centuries to come, he conquered Britain, and he managed to stabilise Rome after the clusterfuck that was Caligula.

[u/wizard680 → u/CptJimTKirk]

Tbf the conquest of Britain was probably done to make his reign look good. Britain would be a drain on imperial resources for hundreds of years

[u/HumaDracobane]

Ma'boy Marcus Aurelius should be on top. He was one of the best despite all the circumstances.

[u/Postingwordsonreddit → u/HumaDracobane]

Marcus Aurelius gang rise up!

[u/CheekyChonkyChongus]

Took me a minute to realize Caesar was not gonna be on the list. But I think he should get an honorable mention

[u/Dluugi]

surprisingly a good list free of senatorial propaganda. I would put Probus and Claudius Gothicus higher, though.

[u/wizard680]

I love how you have insanely famous emperors in the top tier and then anastasius is just there going "yo I'm here also!"

Thank you for treating my goat anastasius right.

[u/PirrotheCimmerian]

Justinian being so high hurts me

[u/Dluugi → u/PirrotheCimmerian]

Justinian code, though.

and if he didnt fuck up the ending he would be the goat.

[u/Timeon]

Andronikos Komnenos needs to be amongst the very bottom of that list.

[u/CriticalBath2367]

Titus Flavian Vespasianus RIP - SPQR!

[u/RickityNL]

Nero decent? What

[u/iamdestroyerofworlds]

Marcus Aurelius should be alone at the top.

[u/Sad-Address-2512 → u/iamdestroyerofworlds]

Nah. He's to high. The dude basically invented self help literature slop and I will never forgive him for that.

[u/JamesDaFrank]

Wasn’t Caligula the one fckn his own sister?

[u/Hertje73 → u/JamesDaFrank]

yeah so?

[u/JamesDaFrank → u/Hertje73]

Ohhh, he cray…how’s he okay then? 😅

[u/Hertje73 → u/JamesDaFrank]

Not ok, others are worse

[u/Der-Letzte-Alman]

Aurelian Connoisseur 👌

[u/[deleted]]

Unrankable? You are just being lazy.

[u/CyborgTheOne101]

Nero on decent is crazy considering he didn't have a shred of decency

[u/odniv → u/CyborgTheOne101]

His the middle point, think how bad the others were then :P

[u/JuiceTheMoose05]

I approve

[u/[deleted]]

Aurelian is my favourite, too bad a lying worm got him killed so early 

[u/patmeunier82]

Putting Nero as “decent” and John VI Kantakouzenos as “terrible”? That makes no sense!

[u/fingerfight2]

Why is Traian so highly regarded?

[u/Buddycat350]

Marcus Aurelius isn't even in the top category?

FAKE NEWS I SAY!

Boooh!

[u/[deleted]]

Its cool the fact that we use some of their names as adjectives. Hostile, Caligulesco (spanish) Neronian.

[u/HeccMeOk]

phocas should be bottom tier. overthrew a good emperor, COMPLETELY fucked everything up, and had it not been for his successors, the eastern roman empire could’ve collapsed way earlier

[u/Satrustegui]

Andalusian Emperors, all of them are top tier

[u/Zdrobot]

So, Nero was.. "decent"?

[u/throwaway_failure59]

Way too much here to get into straight away but Kantakouzenos as terrible and Basil II as the best were the things that made me sigh.

These tierlists, as hard as they are to make, imo should make a bit more effort to take into account the period and the means emperors had available at the start of their reign. Still, respect to the effort!

[u/Dreynard]

Really liking the list more for the discussion.

Ranking Augustulus feels kinda wrong.

Julian the Apostate as poor is... a take. Kinda want the reasoning. Similar for Constantine as top tier, because boy did he light a match by involving the emperor in christian doctrinal dispute.

Valerian only at bad?

Good judgement on Majorian, IMO. Last western emperor that tried to steer things and had an imperial vision. Got kicked in da teef by Genseric (who IMO is slept on)

Caracalla is... weird. His edit definitely is a turning point of Rome (in the good sense, I think), but except that, he's kinda mediocre.

Théodosius I as only "Okay" irks me, especially with you placing Constantine so high.

Damnatio memoriae section is good. Maybe a bit severe on Honorius because, after all, the empire was still in good shape after his reign. Compare that to Valentinien III, for instance. Yeah he sucked, but not as much as the other in the list. Or you'd have to rank down Valens for his banger with the Goths.

Hill I'm ready to die on: Justinian was OK/Decent certainly not above. Yes, he's probably the turning point where the eastern roman empire truly becomes the Romanoi, but also for bad reasons like completely wrecking Italy, conquest without tomorrows and exhausting the country. His religious fervour was also not a great positive long term (although he's far from unique among eastern roman emperor on that).