calling Anthemius "just a puppet" is kinda sad, he tried to retake africa, rebuilt Rome (again) and sent his son to fight the Visigoths (failure). he was quite active at least give him a D tier for his effort
after he said that Tiberius is a C-tier emperor I immediately stopped watching. I personally think that Tiberius is an A-tier emperor and he should be at least a B-tier
@@anarrivingwingedhussar9692that was an exageration by Suetonius, although I would say he was one of the most depraved emperors, but he was also an efficient administrator.
@@TaeSunWoomaybe its just a way to not make the video too long, but i would consider it disrespectful if he doesnt consider "byzantine empire" as the roman empire.
I agree with pretty much every single thing, each time you scrolled down to the next emperor and I was mentally deciding where I would put him it's like you could read my mind. The only one where I would disagree is Septimius Severus. I do understand how bad his economic policy would turn out to be in the long run by starting the whole raising the soldier's pay thing (which hadn't been done since Domitian as far as I remember) and devaluating the coins like crazy along the way, but at the given moment it may have been the way to go. Hear me out. It's important to remember that his reign started after 1) the mini-crisis during Marcus Aurelius' reign with wars, plagues and all 2) Commodus' reign which didn't exactly improve the economic situation and most importantly 3) having to fight 2 consecutive civil wars, one of which featured for example what is said to have been the biggest legion versus legion battle in all of Rome's history in Lugdunum 197, just to give an idea of their scale. Securing the army's loyalty in such a period was vital and one could argue that if raising their pay would just result in delaying the problem (as a civil war would inexorably come the day when somebody would be unable to keep up with the expense), it's still better than not doing anything and risking a new civil war right now. His military campaigns, while maybe nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion weren't always unjustified nor did they do any major damage to the empire. His campaign against the Parthians in 197-198 was instrumental in providing cohesion in his newly unified army after he'd just won the war against Clodius Albinus, all these guys had spent the last couple of years fighting each other so they really needed a nice moment of fighting and looting together to forget all of that, and maybe make more difficult a future usurpation. Not to mention the propaganda value, calling himself Parthicus Maximus and all of that, that's exactly the kind of street credibility that was needed in order to consolidate his power, being himself an usurpator in the first place. And all of that did gain Rome 2 new provinces in the East so you know, there's that. Then he conquered a bunch of desert in Africa, whatever, litterally why not, and his final trip to Scotland was kinda just for fun but nothing too bad happened there, the Picts refused battle and the Romans just went home. All these factors allowed him to preside over a 18-year period of stability, which was not a given after what just happened before, if things had gone a bit differently we might have been talking about a third century crisis starting in 193. For that alone I think he deserves a fair amount of credit, as well as for managing to establish a new dynasty which could have maintained the stability (it's not his fault if his successors all sucked...). I'm not saying he was a great emperor by any means, I'm just arguing that him raising the soldier's pay and devaluating the coin was more a necessity of the times than his personal fantasy, and that it's a bit unfair to blame him so much for doing what he can to maintain himself in power (otherwise you could also argue for example that any emperor faced with an usurpation should have just abdicated to avoid a civil war, that would sure have been for the empire's greatest good). All in all I see a lot of parallels between him and Theodosius : both started their reign in difficult conditions and reigned for a similar amount of time, both fought 2 bloody civil wars which contributed to deplete the empire's manpower, both did some things which would prove terrible in the long run but at the time were arguably the only possible choice (raising soldier's pay and letting the Goths settle in the empire), both gave us shitty dynasties, but both were competent generals and rulers who managed to keep the empire together at least during their lifespan, and as the periods after their death would show you only realize how precious what you had was once it's gone. You gave Theodosius a B which I agree with, so it's only fair my boy Septimius gets a B as well.
Couldnt have agreed more. Septimus Severus was a very solid emperor. Even his raising soldiers pay wouldnt have been that bad in isolation, its really caracalla that took the soldiers pay to a whole nother level beyond anything his father did. The only fault I'd give to Septimus Severus is not being active in the administration of the empire and delegating it to his cousin who he made preatorian prefect, who was notoriously corrupt. Caracalla doesn't deserve a D, he honestly dsserves to be sitting with Commodus and Caligula, and Elagabalus should be in the F tier with them too. Alexander Severus while a young man that showed a lot of peomise, needs to be lower. Him being under the control of his mother, and the failures of rhe parthian campaign and the way he royally pissed off the entire army with his dealings of the germans which got him killed should put him in the D category. If he had lived longer and escaped his mothers clutches, he may well have been in the higher tiers with the greats, but he was a victim of circumstance.
I think I would have shoveled Elagabalus into the "irrelevant" category. Sexually unconventional? No doubt. He was a teenager pushed into the job by a scheming mother and grandmother, and was in way over his head. So he was weird, but not particularly bloody or malicious, and the empire hummed along during his reign pretty much indifferent to his antics. On the other hand, you put Honorius and Valentinian III right where they belong: bottom of the barrel. Two of Rome's lousiest emperors who each reigned 30 years - and frittered every single year away while the Empire slipped down the drain.
lets be honest, Elagabalus is probably the most relatable Roman Emperor for most zoomers, lgbt or not. also, if they really can be considered a trans woman, its nice to not only have claim to fame, but also to have had a woman roman emperor who wasn't a like, totally ruthless backstabber type like the Byzantine Empresses lol
@@demilembias2527Are you guys crazy? Elagabalus WAS a bloody, arrogant, sadistic, and ineffective emperor. He was absolutely one of the worst, regardless of his opinions on gender
@@demilembias2527 I assure you, however much of a loser you think you are, Elagabalus was worse, he executed children and used their intestines for “prophecies”, he would have the crowds of Rome meet below his balcony and throw LIVE VENOMOUS SNAKES away them, and would serve his guests at dinner, WAX FOOD AND MAKE THEM EAT IT.
@@demilembias2527 I have no words, you are correct Elagabalus was a loser, but he was also twisted and harmed people just for the fun of it. He was no better than someone like Atilla the Hun. He is not relatable at all, the common person today is not nearly as evil as him.
Marcus Aurelius is overrated as he tried to found a dynasty rather than appoint the most competent successor as his predecessors had. They almost had a working system of succession down but he screwed it up and returned Rome to an era of civil wars.
@@tokiwartooth2661I don’t believe so. Marcus Aurelius had better choices as his heir, but Constantine didn’t. He only drove the empire into a civil war because he felt bad for his mentor Diocletian, and tried to restore the tetrarchy with his sons.
honestly there werent that many civil wars before the five good emperors era and i would blame it mostly on commodus for being a garbage ruler and killing any chance rome had of substantially expanding past the frontier
No he tried to appoint competent people at first, but they kept dying or refusing like both of his daughters Husbands who either died before him or refused on several occasions
It’s true that sticking the landing so to speak, the “succession issue”, a lot of Roman emperors failed. A lot of leadership fails this final test throughout history.
Clear Christian bias here. Very mistaken on Constantine, his move to Constantinople was a death sentence to the empire plus he basically sacked Rome “legally”. He cared not about Rome only of himself.
Caligula's reign was prosperous, he was beloved by the people and the army. His economical issues would likely have been solved in the long run had he reigned twenty years instead of four, and the only people he didn't fw were the senate - aka the historians, hence the likely exaggeration of his reign's misgivings. Claudius and Nero went through the same historiographical treatment, but Caligula is the one I reckon would be remembered much better if he hadn't been murdered so early into his rule.
@@superuberscary Andrew Johnson was an almost-impeached "elected official" (I know the ethics of VPs taking the place of dead presidents are blurry) who lost the following election whereas Caligula was an "impeached" (re: brutally murdered) emperor. Obviously very different people in very different time periods.
Great video. Would love a ranking of the irrelevant emperors, not sure what the criteria would be but it'd be entertaining to see them ranked as a sub category
Calling Anthemius a puppet is just sad, he at least tried to do something to stop the decline of the west. That already makes him beter than pretty much all of the Western Roman Emperors excluding Majorian and Constantine III. He tried to stop the Vandals and Goths and yes he failed most of the time but he was an energetic, enthousiastic and somewhat capable emperor during the worst time in Roman history and therefore in my opinion deserves to at least be D tier if not higher. Also I believe that Julius Nepos at least deserves to be ranked instead of just being put into irrelevant. He was the last person claiming to be Western Roman Emperor which, although being a dubious honour at best, is something quite important. Not to mention his time in Dalmatia after the fall of the West which again already makes him way more important than someone like Avitus. Julius Nepos deserves at least an E ranking in my opinion, you can maybe even bump that up to a D. Also Tiberius in C? seriousely???
It's interesting you consider failure a plus point rather than an attempt or even execution thereof reform, either cultural or administral, or unification. S-Tier: Augustus, Vesparian, Hadrian, Trajan, Nerva & Aurielian. It is why I often say the Roman Empire was made at it's peak and slowly declined as most of these emperors are from their 1st century of imperial power. Even though people will argue of "greats" like Diocletian or Constantine I, you have to notice that their "success" either brought failure to the imperium or was built because of previous failure. State and point on the two mentioned.
I really liked this presentation because it helped to clarify the significance of the Roman Empire empowers up until the time, the western empire "fell". It would be great to be able to have a way to print out the final array.
Flavians are way too highly rated. This is near-peak Rome, running on inertia. Vespasian and Titus glories did not come as Emperors and Titus two year reign was basically a bunch of natural disasters before he suddenly drops dead. Of all of them, Domitian did the most as Emperor, but for all the work he did as an administrator, he couldn't read a room to save his life (literally given his assassination). He needlessly made enemies of the senate, who he just had to humour that they were still relevent, and even his own family. You call out Nerva for paying out too much to secure his position, but the Flavians ruled by buying off the military despite the fact they were already in a way stronger position than Nerva ever was. Nerva's adoption of Trajan to end the Praetorian mutiny was one of the single greatest political moves of all time.
I'm convinced you hate Tiberius at this point, how can you rate him on the same tier as Nerva (who did nothing but adopt Trajan and die) and Lucius Verus (who just partied all day)? Tiberius is easily a high B, he would be an A if he didn't get depression, but consider how crappy his family was to him, it's understandable.
Nice Tier list! But I will put Constantius III in B for becoming another Claudius II, Petronius Maximus below Valentinian III, Pupienus in D while Balbinus in F (Slightly better than Constantine II, total embarrassing performance), Anthemius and Nepos in C from irrelevant. And I think Gallienus should be A, given his military, political and cultural (perseverance of classical culture in a turbulent time) contributions to the Roman Empire, while bumping Constans I and Severus to B tier.
Domitian! That shocked me. I have reading to do I guess. I know he gets comically smeared but how do we know to call it unfair over the reputation of let’s say Caligula?a
Great tier list!!! I have a question i would like your academic opinion on..knowing that you are a student of ancient history..if one wishes to go to school to study roman imperial history, more specifically study Roman dynasties and dynastic power/ideologies within imperial rome what would be the best route to take? The study of Classics or ancient history? I know there is an overlap in studies when it comes to the two..but what, in your opinion, would be a better route? Thanks again for all the great work
Aurelian was really good, but when I think about it, he still didn't end the crisis completely. Ir was only until Diocletian where the crisis ended, and his edtent was mostly just the military.
@@isaacsepicytchannel2708 He only managed to end the crisis because of Aurelian's actions. Were it not for Aurelian they Empire would've fallen completely. Not to mention were it not for his assassination, the Persians would've also been conquered since Aurelian was on his way there at the time and the Persians were at one of their weakest points in history.
I think low A or high B. He was a great administrator and champion of the people, but also a corrupt politician and ultimately ended up restricting the rights of the people. He also did kinda commit genocide against the Gauls.
@@xada2397 I don't mean directly but his actions led to the office of consol becoming meaningless and democracy, direct or indirect, disappearing for hundreds of years.
Rating Decius E because he cracked down on Christians is just pure bias on your part. Has nothing to do if they were a good Emperor or not. Roman Paganism gave them their vigor and desire for fighting and other things that kept them going strong. Christianity neutered the Romans.
Now, that’s a ridiculous claim, my friend. While it’s true that Roman paganism played a role in motivating the Romans in their various endeavors, Christianity actually played a significant role in extending the empire’s lifespan by another thousand years in the form of the Byzantine Empire. Without conviction in their newfound faith, or if it hadn’t motivated them, the empire would likely have crumbled entirely in the 5th century. Additionally, traditional Roman paganism wasn’t always a driving force for the Romans. From the time of Emperor Hadrian onwards, the people began shifting their focus from their traditional deities towards more esoteric beliefs and metaphysical philosophies, which actually opened their minds to accepting a new religion.
You started well and then fucked up. Christianity didn't weak them or anything like that, that's a illuministic bias that actively searched ways to discredit christianity. You can judge and analize history with such biases. And I'm saying this as a huge atheist and religion hater
Nah bruz, no way philip the arab is c. Absolute e tier or lower. Stopped paying the gothic tribes which eventually lead to them invading and the battle of abritus. So bad he got the next emperor killed.
Fed constant lies by his administrators, idled around for 30 years while everything went to shit killed his best man around and slaughtered barbarian women and children leading to the sack of rome isnt bad?
calling Anthemius "just a puppet" is kinda sad, he tried to retake africa, rebuilt Rome (again) and sent his son to fight the Visigoths (failure). he was quite active at least give him a D tier for his effort
after he said that Tiberius is a C-tier emperor I immediately stopped watching. I personally think that Tiberius is an A-tier emperor and he should be at least a B-tier
Idk how you can consider Tiberius anything higher than a C unless you like little boys
@@anarrivingwingedhussar9692 LOL
@@anarrivingwingedhussar9692that was an exageration by Suetonius, although I would say he was one of the most depraved emperors, but he was also an efficient administrator.
I stopped when I read in the description he stopped at 476
@@TaeSunWoomaybe its just a way to not make the video too long, but i would consider it disrespectful if he doesnt consider "byzantine empire" as the roman empire.
Claudius is a solid A, conqueror of Britannia and good relations with the people of Rome and the Senate
Claudius didn't conquer britannia
I agree with pretty much every single thing, each time you scrolled down to the next emperor and I was mentally deciding where I would put him it's like you could read my mind.
The only one where I would disagree is Septimius Severus. I do understand how bad his economic policy would turn out to be in the long run by starting the whole raising the soldier's pay thing (which hadn't been done since Domitian as far as I remember) and devaluating the coins like crazy along the way, but at the given moment it may have been the way to go. Hear me out.
It's important to remember that his reign started after 1) the mini-crisis during Marcus Aurelius' reign with wars, plagues and all 2) Commodus' reign which didn't exactly improve the economic situation and most importantly 3) having to fight 2 consecutive civil wars, one of which featured for example what is said to have been the biggest legion versus legion battle in all of Rome's history in Lugdunum 197, just to give an idea of their scale. Securing the army's loyalty in such a period was vital and one could argue that if raising their pay would just result in delaying the problem (as a civil war would inexorably come the day when somebody would be unable to keep up with the expense), it's still better than not doing anything and risking a new civil war right now.
His military campaigns, while maybe nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion weren't always unjustified nor did they do any major damage to the empire. His campaign against the Parthians in 197-198 was instrumental in providing cohesion in his newly unified army after he'd just won the war against Clodius Albinus, all these guys had spent the last couple of years fighting each other so they really needed a nice moment of fighting and looting together to forget all of that, and maybe make more difficult a future usurpation. Not to mention the propaganda value, calling himself Parthicus Maximus and all of that, that's exactly the kind of street credibility that was needed in order to consolidate his power, being himself an usurpator in the first place. And all of that did gain Rome 2 new provinces in the East so you know, there's that. Then he conquered a bunch of desert in Africa, whatever, litterally why not, and his final trip to Scotland was kinda just for fun but nothing too bad happened there, the Picts refused battle and the Romans just went home.
All these factors allowed him to preside over a 18-year period of stability, which was not a given after what just happened before, if things had gone a bit differently we might have been talking about a third century crisis starting in 193. For that alone I think he deserves a fair amount of credit, as well as for managing to establish a new dynasty which could have maintained the stability (it's not his fault if his successors all sucked...). I'm not saying he was a great emperor by any means, I'm just arguing that him raising the soldier's pay and devaluating the coin was more a necessity of the times than his personal fantasy, and that it's a bit unfair to blame him so much for doing what he can to maintain himself in power (otherwise you could also argue for example that any emperor faced with an usurpation should have just abdicated to avoid a civil war, that would sure have been for the empire's greatest good).
All in all I see a lot of parallels between him and Theodosius : both started their reign in difficult conditions and reigned for a similar amount of time, both fought 2 bloody civil wars which contributed to deplete the empire's manpower, both did some things which would prove terrible in the long run but at the time were arguably the only possible choice (raising soldier's pay and letting the Goths settle in the empire), both gave us shitty dynasties, but both were competent generals and rulers who managed to keep the empire together at least during their lifespan, and as the periods after their death would show you only realize how precious what you had was once it's gone. You gave Theodosius a B which I agree with, so it's only fair my boy Septimius gets a B as well.
Yeah, putting him next to Caracalla is unwarranted. He could go into either B or C while Caracalla should be bumped to E or F
Couldnt have agreed more. Septimus Severus was a very solid emperor. Even his raising soldiers pay wouldnt have been that bad in isolation, its really caracalla that took the soldiers pay to a whole nother level beyond anything his father did. The only fault I'd give to Septimus Severus is not being active in the administration of the empire and delegating it to his cousin who he made preatorian prefect, who was notoriously corrupt. Caracalla doesn't deserve a D, he honestly dsserves to be sitting with Commodus and Caligula, and Elagabalus should be in the F tier with them too. Alexander Severus while a young man that showed a lot of peomise, needs to be lower. Him being under the control of his mother, and the failures of rhe parthian campaign and the way he royally pissed off the entire army with his dealings of the germans which got him killed should put him in the D category. If he had lived longer and escaped his mothers clutches, he may well have been in the higher tiers with the greats, but he was a victim of circumstance.
I think I would have shoveled Elagabalus into the "irrelevant" category. Sexually unconventional? No doubt. He was a teenager pushed into the job by a scheming mother and grandmother, and was in way over his head. So he was weird, but not particularly bloody or malicious, and the empire hummed along during his reign pretty much indifferent to his antics. On the other hand, you put Honorius and Valentinian III right where they belong: bottom of the barrel. Two of Rome's lousiest emperors who each reigned 30 years - and frittered every single year away while the Empire slipped down the drain.
lets be honest, Elagabalus is probably the most relatable Roman Emperor for most zoomers, lgbt or not. also, if they really can be considered a trans woman, its nice to not only have claim to fame, but also to have had a woman roman emperor who wasn't a like, totally ruthless backstabber type like the Byzantine Empresses lol
@@demilembias2527Are you guys crazy? Elagabalus WAS a bloody, arrogant, sadistic, and ineffective emperor. He was absolutely one of the worst, regardless of his opinions on gender
@@crastinativeapollo1231 yeah but she wasn't a girlboss, she was a loser, and that's relatable.
@@demilembias2527 I assure you, however much of a loser you think you are, Elagabalus was worse, he executed children and used their intestines for “prophecies”, he would have the crowds of Rome meet below his balcony and throw LIVE VENOMOUS SNAKES away them, and would serve his guests at dinner, WAX FOOD AND MAKE THEM EAT IT.
@@demilembias2527 I have no words, you are correct Elagabalus was a loser, but he was also twisted and harmed people just for the fun of it. He was no better than someone like Atilla the Hun. He is not relatable at all, the common person today is not nearly as evil as him.
Aurelian is a B tier? WTF?
27:05 Aurelian
He was a pagan and is way too overrated. I think Majorian was better.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded So he was a Pagan. Thats a good thing! (:
@@andreavoigtlander1087 No the hell it isnt.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetardedreligion isn’t a determining factor to how good a ruler you are.
Marcus Aurelius is overrated as he tried to found a dynasty rather than appoint the most competent successor as his predecessors had. They almost had a working system of succession down but he screwed it up and returned Rome to an era of civil wars.
Is Constantine also overrated for this reason then?
@@tokiwartooth2661I don’t believe so. Marcus Aurelius had better choices as his heir, but Constantine didn’t. He only drove the empire into a civil war because he felt bad for his mentor Diocletian, and tried to restore the tetrarchy with his sons.
honestly there werent that many civil wars before the five good emperors era and i would blame it mostly on commodus for being a garbage ruler and killing any chance rome had of substantially expanding past the frontier
No he tried to appoint competent people at first, but they kept dying or refusing like both of his daughters Husbands who either died before him or refused on several occasions
It’s true that sticking the landing so to speak, the “succession issue”, a lot of Roman emperors failed. A lot of leadership fails this final test throughout history.
Clear Christian bias here. Very mistaken on Constantine, his move to Constantinople was a death sentence to the empire plus he basically sacked Rome “legally”. He cared not about Rome only of himself.
“Caligula would have blushed” - NICE 👍
Caligula's reign was prosperous, he was beloved by the people and the army. His economical issues would likely have been solved in the long run had he reigned twenty years instead of four, and the only people he didn't fw were the senate - aka the historians, hence the likely exaggeration of his reign's misgivings. Claudius and Nero went through the same historiographical treatment, but Caligula is the one I reckon would be remembered much better if he hadn't been murdered so early into his rule.
That’s like saying if Andrew Johnson ruled longer he would be remembered better
@@superuberscary Andrew Johnson was an almost-impeached "elected official" (I know the ethics of VPs taking the place of dead presidents are blurry) who lost the following election whereas Caligula was an "impeached" (re: brutally murdered) emperor. Obviously very different people in very different time periods.
Caligula is the second worst Roman emperor a bankrupted the empire in 4 years after Tiberius who was the cheapskate
Love the Mario Kart music in the background. It just fits the topic in question
Just discovered your channel and I love your videos👏
Great video. Would love a ranking of the irrelevant emperors, not sure what the criteria would be but it'd be entertaining to see them ranked as a sub category
3:53 “what she asked of me at the end of the day Caligula would have blushed”
my boy is back
Calling Anthemius a puppet is just sad, he at least tried to do something to stop the decline of the west. That already makes him beter than pretty much all of the Western Roman Emperors excluding Majorian and Constantine III. He tried to stop the Vandals and Goths and yes he failed most of the time but he was an energetic, enthousiastic and somewhat capable emperor during the worst time in Roman history and therefore in my opinion deserves to at least be D tier if not higher. Also I believe that Julius Nepos at least deserves to be ranked instead of just being put into irrelevant. He was the last person claiming to be Western Roman Emperor which, although being a dubious honour at best, is something quite important. Not to mention his time in Dalmatia after the fall of the West which again already makes him way more important than someone like Avitus. Julius Nepos deserves at least an E ranking in my opinion, you can maybe even bump that up to a D. Also Tiberius in C? seriousely???
It's interesting you consider failure a plus point rather than an attempt or even execution thereof reform, either cultural or administral, or unification.
S-Tier: Augustus, Vesparian, Hadrian, Trajan, Nerva & Aurielian.
It is why I often say the Roman Empire was made at it's peak and slowly declined as most of these emperors are from their 1st century of imperial power.
Even though people will argue of "greats" like Diocletian or Constantine I, you have to notice that their "success" either brought failure to the imperium or was built because of previous failure. State and point on the two mentioned.
I really liked this presentation because it helped to clarify the significance of the Roman Empire empowers up until the time, the western empire "fell". It would be great to be able to have a way to print out the final array.
Flavians are way too highly rated. This is near-peak Rome, running on inertia. Vespasian and Titus glories did not come as Emperors and Titus two year reign was basically a bunch of natural disasters before he suddenly drops dead. Of all of them, Domitian did the most as Emperor, but for all the work he did as an administrator, he couldn't read a room to save his life (literally given his assassination). He needlessly made enemies of the senate, who he just had to humour that they were still relevent, and even his own family.
You call out Nerva for paying out too much to secure his position, but the Flavians ruled by buying off the military despite the fact they were already in a way stronger position than Nerva ever was. Nerva's adoption of Trajan to end the Praetorian mutiny was one of the single greatest political moves of all time.
I'm convinced you hate Tiberius at this point, how can you rate him on the same tier as Nerva (who did nothing but adopt Trajan and die) and Lucius Verus (who just partied all day)? Tiberius is easily a high B, he would be an A if he didn't get depression, but consider how crappy his family was to him, it's understandable.
Didn’t you do a list like this already?
Read description
Nice Tier list! But I will put Constantius III in B for becoming another Claudius II, Petronius Maximus below Valentinian III, Pupienus in D while Balbinus in F (Slightly better than Constantine II, total embarrassing performance), Anthemius and Nepos in C from irrelevant.
And I think Gallienus should be A, given his military, political and cultural (perseverance of classical culture in a turbulent time) contributions to the Roman Empire, while bumping Constans I and Severus to B tier.
Gallienus should be S
Thanks to him Aurelian (another S) was able to restore the civilized world
off topic but where do you get your maps and how do you edit
Nice video. I appreciate your thoughts
Domitian! That shocked me. I have reading to do I guess. I know he gets comically smeared but how do we know to call it unfair over the reputation of let’s say Caligula?a
I love listening to people who know what they're talking about
06:55
_... against the great Jewish revolt in Palestine ..._
In Judaea. It wasn't called Palestine until the 130s.
33:45
Maximinus Daia was also the last pharaoh.
38:12 Everything you said is true but Julian will always be S (Okay, maybe A-Tier) of my heart!
The guy who created this is a Christian which is why he hates Julian
pagan
Based Paganism enjoyer
Should've talked more about Nepos
but when the world needed him most, he vanished.
Please keep making videos!
Nero burned Rome!!! He's on your E Level?!
He didn’t.
Constantine the based 🗡🗿🌿☦
Elagabalus is Twitter's favorite Emperor
Great tier list!!! I have a question i would like your academic opinion on..knowing that you are a student of ancient history..if one wishes to go to school to study roman imperial history, more specifically study Roman dynasties and dynastic power/ideologies within imperial rome what would be the best route to take? The study of Classics or ancient history? I know there is an overlap in studies when it comes to the two..but what, in your opinion, would be a better route?
Thanks again for all the great work
With a 50 minutes long video I had thought that you’d be based and go up to 1453
Difficult to rank Elagabulas? F tier and click off off this vid.
Aurelian not S tier, list disregarded.
He's basically on top 1 rulers of history
Aurelian was really good, but when I think about it, he still didn't end the crisis completely. Ir was only until Diocletian where the crisis ended, and his edtent was mostly just the military.
@@isaacsepicytchannel2708 He only managed to end the crisis because of Aurelian's actions. Were it not for Aurelian they Empire would've fallen completely.
Not to mention were it not for his assassination, the Persians would've also been conquered since Aurelian was on his way there at the time and the Persians were at one of their weakest points in history.
Where would Caesar be in this list?
I think low A or high B. He was a great administrator and champion of the people, but also a corrupt politician and ultimately ended up restricting the rights of the people. He also did kinda commit genocide against the Gauls.
@@MainMan10 How did he restrict the rights of the people?
@@xada2397 I don't mean directly but his actions led to the office of consol becoming meaningless and democracy, direct or indirect, disappearing for hundreds of years.
@@MainMan10 Democracy was nothing more than an illusion in the republic.
s tier
aurelian falls behind only trajan and augustus
you are aware that the picture you used for Claudius II is a statue of Aurelian right???
Valerian in E? Blunder? Dude his army got hit by the Cyprian plague hard how is that his fault.
where is ricimer?
Ricimer was not a emperor
@@fetuseater2000but he practically owned it using puppets, he did control the power
Rating Decius E because he cracked down on Christians is just pure bias on your part.
Has nothing to do if they were a good Emperor or not.
Roman Paganism gave them their vigor and desire for fighting and other things that kept them going strong.
Christianity neutered the Romans.
I love how you are complaining about the bias of the video yet follow up by immediately adding your own bias lol.
Now, that’s a ridiculous claim, my friend. While it’s true that Roman paganism played a role in motivating the Romans in their various endeavors, Christianity actually played a significant role in extending the empire’s lifespan by another thousand years in the form of the Byzantine Empire. Without conviction in their newfound faith, or if it hadn’t motivated them, the empire would likely have crumbled entirely in the 5th century. Additionally, traditional Roman paganism wasn’t always a driving force for the Romans. From the time of Emperor Hadrian onwards, the people began shifting their focus from their traditional deities towards more esoteric beliefs and metaphysical philosophies, which actually opened their minds to accepting a new religion.
The Eastern Roman Empire, more accurately known as the Roman Empire, would beg to differ.
You started well and then fucked up.
Christianity didn't weak them or anything like that, that's a illuministic bias that actively searched ways to discredit christianity. You can judge and analize history with such biases. And I'm saying this as a huge atheist and religion hater
Immediately stopped watching when I saw Emperor Poopy Anus was not S tier. Other than that, good list.
Pronunciation made me hate this video, really try to learn more before you say "nermous vs Nemarious"
Nerva should be higher
Nah bruz, no way philip the arab is c. Absolute e tier or lower. Stopped paying the gothic tribes which eventually lead to them invading and the battle of abritus. So bad he got the next emperor killed.
👍
😆 Promo_SM
We had a lot of fun laughing at your right wing Christian basis.
bro what?
What? Help is out there 🎉
commodus is s tier
Hey Titus and Domitian produced the gospels and inadvertently started christianity, that's S-tier no matter what.
🤡
They didn't commission them, they had no hand in their production.
@@saragos1216The gospels contain over 40 typological parallels with Flavius Josephus, the idea behind them is very obvious.
@@Breakfast_of_Champions I don't see what that has to do with Titus or Domitian
Could you explain what you mean by that? Wasn’t jesus born during Augustus reign?
Honorius isn’t that bad
Fed constant lies by his administrators, idled around for 30 years while everything went to shit killed his best man around and slaughtered barbarian women and children leading to the sack of rome isnt bad?
Had to stop watching after your statement of Titus crushing the Jewish revolts in "Palestine." It's called Israel.
the romans called it palestine, you wouldnt say caesar conquer france, you would say he conquered gaul
He absolutely **CRUSHED** them. Where’s the menorah?
lmfao
A more appropriate term would be "Judea".
romans absoluteley anhilates the jews, and renamed the province into syria palestina to rub salt into the wound