With the exception of Aurelian or Diocletian, I forgot which one, who fixed inflation by switching to the aureus, a gold coin that would remain stable during much of the early Middle Ages. The chad Gold Standard vs the virgin fiat currency.
@@Duke_of_Lorraine it was Constantine with the introduction of the solidus. The aureus is the gold coin that was replaced. Unfortunately he didn’t do anything for the debasement of silver coinage so it really didn’t correct any underlying problems.
Domitian is my favorite Roman emperor. My 7th grade history teacher said, and I quote “That’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time.” His was Marcus Aurelius. Big surprise.
Aurelian: *Spares the Life of Zenobia after defeating her* Romans: "Why did you let her live?" Aurelian: "You see, I think it was necessary to do it in order to end all this spiral of violence that has devastated the Empire for the last decades. Rome was built, not only with blood, but with wisdom and morality too, even though it seems that the whole world only remembers the blood. As long as there exists only violence, there will only be chaos and lack of control everywhere. Perhaps sparing my enemy's life won't change anything, but what right would I have to call myself emperor if I only thought with my fist and not with my mind? Did Augustus, Marcus Aurelius and many others become gods just with their thirst for blood? I may have started my career as a very bellicose person, but these last few years have completely changed my life. And if I can change, then everybody can change..." Romans: "You just did it to bang her, right?" Aurelian: "Yep"
Gallienus played arguably one of the cruelest games of Whac-a-Mole in history: he deals with threats up in the West, then they pop up in the East, during the time I'd honestly argue that Rome was at its absolute worst. It's a testament to his ability that he lasted for fifteen years, during a fifty year period with more than twenty emperors (or claimants).
The efforts of him, Claudius, Auralien and Probus all got retconned by the tetrarchs and no one had any way to verify so they got a bunch of credit for what those four did over 30 years. They held down the empire at the most vulnerable it had been since the end of the Second Punic War.
Gallienus is my favourite emperor, not because he is the greatest at what he did, but because he had such an interesting reign where he had to face so much hardship and still managed to effectively rule.
Me too. He had almost everything against him, like decades of military coups one after the another, which lead to frontiers collapsing without fortresses behind them. Oh, and his father losing badly at edessa, of course. All he could do was run around trying to form a decent army, gaining time at the expense of the provinciae. Not ideal, but definitely far from the worst I love Gibbon, but he really did dirty to gallienus (and people should really stop using a 3 hundred years book other then for its eccellente style)
One my favourite stories about gallenius which may not be true but hey, is that he challenged postumus to single combat, kind of shows how tired he was of it all.
When Gallienus was eporore A Roman merchant who sold fake jewels was sentenced to face a lion in the arena. When the gate finally opened, a chicken walked out. Gallienus porcelaimed "He practiced deciet and then had it practiced on him"
You absolute chadlad. Tiberius, Galienus AND Domitian. 100%. I have always attempted to challenge the narrative of these champs. Though they ruled in very different times, it is apparent that whatever flaws they had are massively eclipsed by their strengths. Roman history is riddled with character assassination that far too many historians accept without question. Great to see you put it on video. Cheers
@@Octavius0 his point contains a grain of truth: they were simply closer to events. Propinquity to events often does the heavy lifting. Take the world’s best historian today vs. Arrian on Alexander the Great. Arrian had access to Ptolemy’s account and others. Simple nearness to events, even if centuries later, makes them weightier- even if Senators don’t like certain Emperors. Imagine only the negative sources on Augustus survived. You’d still get a lot of truth about the man: his sexual hypocrisy, his ambition, his dependence on Caesar’s name, his dependence on Agrippa, his early ruthlessness. Shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater and assume the negative sources have 0 value because they’re agenda-driven.
I do not understand why everyone thinks Aurelian is underrated. It’s pretty universally recognized that he was crucial to the Empire's survival, and for ruling only five years, what he accomplished was remarkable. Nobody ever has a bad thing to say about his importance to Rome.
mainstream educators rarely if ever mention or flesh out Aurelian's reign as emperor so he is underrated despite games like "total war rome" making him more popular.
it's a more modern change. Basically people used to just pretty much skip to Diocletian and constantine for expediency sake. This happened in a couple classes I took that covered roman history. Something that confused me greatly as I learned about him through old history channel roman series, and thinking this was the coolest dude. Since then though it's more history series on youtube cover him more extensively and so everyone knows about him much more.
aurelians recognition is only something that has happened within just the past 5 or so years, before then he was pretty much never heard of. I remember when i was learning roman history in the 7th grade the teacher never once mentioned aurelian, it was just "marcus aurelius dies, commodus ruins the empire, crisis of the third century, diocletian divided constantine reconnected" For that matter almost every emperor during the 3rd century was ignored tbh...
We never learned about him in high school, and we spent at least half a year on Roman history (my country used to be a Roman province). The 3rd century crisis was briefly mentioned and then we had to learn all of Diocletianus' reforms in detail. I found out about Aurelian thanks to Unbiased History and I'm very disappointed no teacher mentioned this badass. Nowadays he's become something of a meme but he deserves it.
If you make an overrated list : Septimius Severus. After beating an usurper alongside Clodius Abinus, he could have ruled with him as co-emperor and keep the Pax Romana. Instead, he declared war on him to instead have his sons (Caracala and Geta) as co-emperors, debasing the currency to pay for them and the decisive battle being an absolute slaughter of roman troops. We never knew how Geta would have been as an emperor as he switfly got murdered by his brother, who would be a tyrant. This set the precedent for generals taking power by force without any legitimacy from the Senate and instead switching toward a dynastic system of the strongest, debasing the currency to pay the legions, destroying both political and economic stabilities and paving the way for the Crisis of the Third Century. The pure slaughter that was the battle of Lugdunum, romans against romans, also decreased the motivation to enter the legion : it's one thing to risk your life to protect your home from barbarians, it's another to be ground meat because some general wants his face on gold coins. On the long term, Septimius Severus killed the Imperium.
Probably going to make some people mad here, but I think Diocletian would need to go on that list. Yes, he had a lot of reforms. Quite a few of them failed though, especially once he wasn't around to manage them. I'd say his tax policy was pretty good, but it was on a razors edge due to how much he taxed, and his successors didn't handle it particularly well. The Tetrarchy was a good idea on paper, but it collapsed immediately after he stepped down. His price controls were terrible, and collapsed immediately. He gets a lot of credit for ending the third century crisis, but it was basically already over before he took office. Most of the credit for that should probably go to Claudius II, Aurelian, Probus and Carus. His policy towards Christians, whilst almost certainly overstated by Christian historians, were bad enough that the west didn't really go through with them. It also didn't really work, as 20 years later, Rome was basically a Christian empire. The only thing I'd give him unreserved credit for is his administrative reforms, which were both good and necessary. Let me be clear, I don't think Diocletian is a bad empire. I think he did some good things, and even the bad things he did were well intentioned. That said, top 5 emperor is probably a bit much.
7:00 For those interested in a more positive depiction of Tiberius, there is the 1968 mini-series "The Caesars" (considered a precedent for "I, Claudius", but with less sensationalism). In that show, (which takes place from the last days of Augustus until the death of Caligula), André Morell plays a prudent and honorable Tiberius, who tries to be a good Emperor despite not wanting such position. The scene in which the Emperor bursts into tears after learning of the murder of his son by Sejanus and the massacre that followed is simply unforgettable
Glad that the Crisis of 3rd Century boys like Gallienus and Aurelian getting some proper overdue recognition... being handed the empire at that time was definitely like playing the game in Deity mode when compared to emperors like Antoninus Pius and Hadrian who had a strong and stable empire to manage from the beginning
@@FazeParticles seriously though his letter to the Persians "hey don't do that or I might do something about it" and then they stopped, while possibly not true is some serious based Chad energy
Hadrian wasn't exactly playing on easy mode since the Senate basically hated him and were possibly plotting to kill him for years but couldn't figure out how, since he was on the road and upgrading the empires defenses non stop
Valens is pretty underrated because of battle of Adrianople. In reality, he was a good emperor who had to deal with the mess left behind by Julian ths Apostate after he(Julian) miserably failed to defeat the Persians, kept the Eastern Roman Empire relatively stable and tried to incorporate the Goths into Roman army, a task which was failed by his subordinates while he was away from the Balkans. He used to campaign against the Goths beyond the Danube victoriously(that's why the Goths didn't revolt till they were forced to by the subordinates of Valens). He finished the largest aqueduct in Constantinople, known as aqueduct of Valens, and in the battle of Adrianople he didn't run but rallied his men and fought till the bitter end. A heroic death for a true Roman. But instead this one battle that cost him his life is used to diminish him to a mediocre or bad emperor. Valentinian I literally rage quit his life and Valens fell like a champ.
Gotta feel for Tiberius. Forced to do a job he never wanted, in a family where he was never treated as part of the inner circle, surrounded by plotters and schemers who ensured the last of the JC line was gonna be weirdos and lunatics. The Flavian Dynasty doesnt get enough credit for taking the framework of the previous dynasty and running with it.
Constantius II is that type of emperor you'd want to use as an example of how your time as a late Roman emperor would be. (If you lasted your whole life on the throne)
Appreciate the shoutouts to my boy, Constantius II. Dude worked insanely hard, must say. For someone who is regarded as being short tempered, he didn't show it much in his policy. He actually didn't start any civil wars, but only reacted to uprisings that happened around him. And when he did have to mobilize against Magnentius and later Julian, Constantius made sure that he could negotiate a ceasefire with the battle against the Sassanids and in the case of Magnentius he even let him retreat after fighting in Pannonia because he focused on ensuring the Rhine region was secure before following. And he was willing to swallow his pride when it came to Julian. I don't really think that Constantius was conspiring against Julian (he exiled Marcellus) but I do think that he wasn't really fond of the boy, so being able to recognize that a power vacuum was the last thing that the empire needed and Julian was the most competent guy around he was able to abdicate.
Speaking of Uncle Claudius, I’m surprised he isn’t on this list. While that the general consensus is no longer that he is a bumbling fool, I still don’t think the Uncle Claudius gets the love and recognition he truly deserves.
Probus is an Emperor I think is underrated, even more so than Aurelian. He was like Aurelian pt.2 continuing what Aurelian did in reasserting discipline in the Legions, but was noted for being less harsh and more of a workaholic with his troops. With how well regarded Aurelian is compared to the often forgotten Probus he might have been more fitting for the list.
The late Crisis of the Third Century had A LOT of OP people running around at once.. You have Gallienus, Aurelian , Claudius Gothicus , Constancius I , Diocletian , Valerian , and more all alive at the same time ... and most served in the cav together. Talk about a time of giants... without these amazing people all being alive at the same time and all their hard work they each put in.. its likely Rome wouldnt have survived.
There were just as many people like Maximinus Thrax, Constantine the second, Trembonialus Gallus, and 3 million usurpers. I apologize for the butchered spelling.
These heroes of Rome were admirable. However, I think it shows the state Rome was in. From the Severan dynasty onward (Severus and Caracalla contributed greatly to the Crisis of the Third Century), the Empire required heroes just to survive for any prolonged period of time. As Tominus Maximus said, in its late period, almost no one saw Rome as worth saving.
One thing to consider about Tiberius as well is that Augustus really did not want Tiberius as his heir, he really wanted Germanicus or one of his blood relatives. So considering that he spend his whole life being the backup, I'd say he did pretty well.
Glad to see Gallienus heading this list. One more of his accomplishments was acting as a patron to Plotinus, the founder of the philosophical school of Neoplatonism, which had a profound intellectual impact on late antiquity, both pagan and Christian thinkers.
I'd say do an Overrated Emperors video next... and I can list a few who would go on it.... One, Septimius Severus... killed the one man who could have been a perfect co-emperor with him and continued the Pax Romana... but no, try assassinating him, fail, and then pursue him with an army to defeat him, only then to tax the roman people and devalue the empire's currency to pay for your sons to be co-emperors, one of whom would be one of the worst tyrants the empire had... Another is Diocletian... his position is unique because while he did many great things to stabilize to Empire during his twenty years in power, quite a few of his reforms failed, and many that did succeed, were placed right next to a line in the sand, and when he stepped down, they fell apart pretty fast.... Not to mention quite a bit what he and Maximian, are credited for... really came from the good barracks emeprors during the crises of the third century, Gallienus, Probus, Claudius Gothicus, and Aurelian, and maybe the crises would have ended sooner, had their reigns been longer and their armies not suddenly deciding to kill each of them... ( except Gothicus, he died of plague )
Tiberius is for me the most underrated. He had to solidify an institution created by and for Augustus and make it long lasting. You can always argue Augustus was just a Glorified Dictator created by the senate, it was Tiberius made the role unique into something new as he wasnt appointed the same way as Caesar, Augustus, Sulla etc. He was extremely unpopular among the senate for this reason he was beyond their classical power status quo that had existed since the beginning of the republic and so naturally the wealthy disliked him but you cant reign for over 20 years without backing and with that popularity. During his reign Germania was stabilised and as a broader scale the whole empire and he was literally the chosen heir of Augustus how was a well known advocate of meritocracy which itself should show his worth.
Have to disagree. Augustus only chose him as a last resort. Also, the institutions of the Principate were largely in place when Augustus died. The man ruled for two generations.
@@aaronclarke1434 His original heir may have died out but Augustus build that generation of administrator, followers and military men so he may be last but only option id say would be a stretch I'm sure Augustus would have had several options like he did through his life obviously we can never say that but we can't also say the opposite. Augustus was a glorified individual and any retroactively clear succession establish pre death can easily be violated post death with easy examples like Alexander, Charles III of Austria, Diocletian and these examples are tradionally legitmised while this was the first succession and you can't even use that phrase tbh if you compare the passing of royal titles passing from Philip to Alexander from Louis XIV to Louis XV from Elizabeth II to Charles this was something else. Like mentioned the Roman empire would have had several popular powerful men with either military backing from Augustus conquests, his high administrative/governer offices or being old order political giants which there would be all 3 of in the administrating of massive empire and yet Tiberius internally had a stable rule outside of the senate getting pissed
@@paul_5848 but that’s not right because Augustus, by having Egypt as his personal property, paid the legions himself. They owed complete loyalty to the Princeps. Their Sacramentum was to him, despite ambiguous appearances. He has Maius Magisterium. He controlled the upper part of the cursus honorum. Only those Senators in the upper part could have provinces and therefore legions. One Augustus scholar said he was like a man alone at the top of a tree exhorting people at its base. It really was the institution of the Principate that bestowed these things once it had evolved with the Senate handing him more and more powers. He wasn’t a coalition builder. He was the sole victor of a civil war. Which Tiberius dynastically inherited. Augustus saw a line of succession from Venus to Aeneas to Caesar to him to his dynasty. Just as even Commodus could survive for a time on Marcus Aurelius’ word, so anyone Augustus named would’ve had every advantage and have to actively try to screw it up, which Tiberius nearly did. I love to imagine an alternate history where Agrippa lives a long life.
I would've had a stroke if Gallienus wasn't number one. Easily the most punished emperor in history. This man inspires the same absolute respect and admiration that Constantine XI does.
Keeping in mind your previous video on the Roman emperors rankings I was sure to find Domitian on the top of this list. But you managed to keep the suspense. ))
I definitely agree with Domitian and Galienus being the two most underrated emperors, great list!! The only thing that I would change is I would probably add Julian the apostate somewhere on the list, and would probably even add Antoninus Pius as well
Great list! If you ever make a list of overrated emperors, I would have some suggestions. Nerva (because of the “five good emperors) Septimius Severus (praised for ending civil wars that he started, initiated lots of trends that weakened the empire in the long run, like debasement and overpaying the army) Julian the Apostate (started a war with Persia to gain legitimacy and died, leaving the empire in a weaker position) Theodosius the Great (his solution for the goths led to many problems for the empire and destroyed many western armies, leaving both half’s of the empire in a weakened position at the star of the V century)
I agree with all of these, another person I would add to this list is Nero. He was actually very popular with the common people during his reign. And he wasn’t in Rome when it burned.
Nero definitely wasn't a bad Emperor. He was just incapable. It didn't matter at first, because Seneca, Agrippina, and Burrus were keeping him in check. Without them, he had no hope of maintaining power.
A good list..glad to see constantius ii here..a cold blooded bastard but conmpetent who knew what his duties were. Domitian was the best. Given nothing to start he did everything well . I always thought gallienus got the worst hand dealt to him. No matter how tirelessly he seems to have worked he suffered one trsgedy after another and one overwhelming problem after another.
He's a favourite of Romaboos and those that like Rome, however he's still very underrated when looking and the wider public, as most people don't know who Aurelian is.
He meant underrated in the way that most of those not familiar with Roman history have no idea who Aurelian is unlike other big names as Augustus or Constantine (even Nero or Caligula). Considering his achievements he deserves far more recognition.
@@randomguy6152 well after Caesar or Aurelian the empire didn't fall and it Majorian's preparations to invade Africa weren't sabotaged it would have been impressive comeback for the western empire
Caesar's death and the subsequent death of the """""Liberators""""" gave the death blow to the Republic. Granted, it was already dying after Gaius Marius' military reforms.
Septimius Severus, Justinian I, and Domitian comes to mind. Romaboos only really love Domitian in particular only because he fixed the coin system. His military failures in the dacian wars was pretty horrible.
Diocletian BY FAR. Although he ruled the tetrarchy and brought stability to the economy, he slaughtered Roman citizens, including children, due to their religion on such a scale it lead to a noticeable decline and future disloyalty, forcing people to keep the jobs of their parents, and the fact his tetrarchy ultimately failed the moment he resigned, and became exactly what he tried to avoid in the first place: A Christian dominated nation ruled by a single man who brought back succession by blood. Plus there's belief he organized the deaths of some emperors, including Carus. Dude was straight up power hungry and had the perfect alibi to look like everything was under control...by being the only guy who knew how the system worked. Just look at Constantine's version of the Tetrarchy. It was just a worse version.
1. Theodosius I 2. Valentinian I 3. Gallienus 4. Domitian 5. Septimus Severus 6. Constans I 7. Valens 8. Tiberius I 9. Constantius II 10. Severus Alexander My Top 10 underrated emperors.
No Majorian? He was like the last hurrah of Rome. The incarnation of what was and never again to be. He could not save Rome but his efforts were truly commendable. Perhaps it's a bit of romanticizing yet it does feel like that when you understand his situation. He's in this video yet I see almost no comments on him.
Glad to see Claudius Gothic, although he was extremely popular at his time and could have ended the crisis of the third century, most people don't even know who he is.
Bro you seem so quick with doing your roman videos, it feels like you really don't like the other vids. (Btw Sponsianus is by far the most underrated emperor, he is so underrated, we don't even know if he existed!)
Wholeheartedly agree with the top 2 placements. Would love to see a list of overrated emperors. I can think of several names that belong there like Theodosius, Septimius Severus, and especially Justinian
Justinian isn't overrated, he largely got fucked over by the Justinian Plague. Which was the black death. Not like Europe handled that well centuries later.
At this point Aurelian is a bit overhyped. dont get me wrong, he was cool and I would rank him in top 10 emperrors, but he isnt underrated by anyone. Also he basically profited from the Gallienic reforms and Claudius Gothiccus success. At this point, Probus and Carus, who succeeded him are way more underrated, even tough they were also pretty successful
Galienus' spot at number one is absolutely deserVed. Reading about all the shit he had to deal with as Emperor and seeing him come on top of it all and nearly bring the Gallic Empire back into the fold was a wild ride. Rome would've ended had it been under a lesser man at the time.
Here's an idea for a video, what would you have done to save the empire at a certain point in its history. In other words what went wrong and made it inevitable
Worst thing about Aurelian is, according to Wikipedia, it's the fault of a random secretary trying to cover his own ass after a mess-up that he ended up getting killed.
Uh, Maxentius was not "the last Roman Emperor to reside in Rome"... Where did you get that from? I mean, for one, Constantine resided in Rome immediately after him. Even the later Western Roman Emperors like Valentinian III, Libius Severus and Anthemius all resided in Rome.
If this was a Byzantine list, my top three would be Heraclius, Justin I, and Constantine XI (not necessarily in that order), with heavy honorable mentions to Maurice, Zeno, and Theodore I.
@@Jg-jg6jb this guy accepts the western emperors as Roman but not the eastern ones. This just goes to show that the empire ended in 476 for him. He literally made a video about how the romanity of "Byzantines" is completely subjective, which is of course total bullshit. Not gonna take this guy seriously anymore.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard oh I didnt know that. Kind of lame considering how he has pretty decent content, but I guess everyone has their own views and opinions on history no matter how revisionist it might be.
He would have defeated the Goths in the Battle of Naissus, and eventually defeat the Gallic Empire (because he almost did once before getting wounded). Maybe not as great as Aurelian, but certainly a viable replacement.
@@aaronTGP_3756 recent histography indicate that it is more likely than gallineus was the one leading the Romans at the battle of naissus not claudius gothicus
@@purplen33t17 I was just going from the orthodox consensus. But I personally agree: Gallienus definitely won. Now for headcanon: Claudius II, a minor officer had Gallienus assassinated. He proved his military worth by winning the Battle of Lake Benacus, but showed incompetence when the city of Autun defected to him, but he refused to help. This soured relations with Zenobia. So he sent someone to subdue her. This man failed and Zenobia decided to abandon her loyalty to Rome. Meanwhile, Claudius was busy trying to fight the defenseless Goths in the Thracian mountains (probably wanting an easy victory). Only due to Postumus getting killed for refusing to sack Mainz and the subsequent turmoil in Gaul, Spain defected to Rome and Placidianus was able to subdue the Rhone Valley. His general Aurelian was planning a conspiracy, but they got lucky and Claudius died of plague. Aurelian was proclaimed Emperor by the army, while Claudius' brother Quintillus gained allies in Rome. When things had cooled down under Diocletian, he successfully eliminated most memory of the late crisis emperors, especially for gallienus and aurelian. Decades later, Claudius' relative Constantine used the limited knowledge to their advantage, using propaganda to make Claudius II a hero and conqueror of the Goths, and attributed his misdeeds to Gallienus, and Gallienus' great victory to Claudius II. Is this mostly made up? Essentially yes, but I guess I just really hate Claudius II, who is overrated. He was really just another 3rd century Emperor: a half-decent general who had a short reign.
If Silbannacus was really Roman emperor and Ulpia Severina was really Roman empress, then they are the most underrated by far, since almost no one even knows they exist
"Manu ad ferrum" Imperator Caesar Lucius Domitius Aurelianus Gothicus Germanicus Parthicus Augustus "Restitutor Orbis" english translation: "Hand on hilt" Emperor Caesar Lucian Domitian Aurelian Gothicus Germanicus Parthicus Augustus ",Restorer of the World" will never be forgotten he my favorite emperor ever and is the only man besides for constantine to manage to rule with 1 emperor, 1 empire, and 1 god
Flavivus Stilicho if only he took power as Emperor then he would’ve been on this list but instead he was a Loyal General half barbarian fighting for Rome and was betrayed and so Rome started its descent and down fall well west Rome east Rome lasted way longer
@Gay Gay true but then again it’s all about who can win the battles to become the leader/Emperor and no one would blame him seeing as how corrupt or betrayal ridden the Empire was but hey in his death he was more respected then all of his foes
I agree with your list, altough I am sorely missing Julian and Galerius. Mostly the former.. Julian was Marcus Aurelius reborn and with his death the last candle for the hope of another glorious period of Rome was extinguished.
Julian is overrated. He didn't rule for long, and his attempts to bring back paganism did more harm than good. Not to mention his glory seeking attempt to take Mesopotamia ended in the deaths of many Roman soldiers. He really wanted to be Trajan, but he was more so Marc Anthony.
My List 10. Carus 9. Quintillus 8. Titus 7. Lucius Verus 6. Tiberius 5. Carus 4. Majorian 3. Nero 2. Constantius Chlorus 1. Domitian PS- I thought that Constantius Chlorus ruled from 305-306. Are we thinking of different people?
Majorian was not the greatest emperor. But he sure wasn't one who went out without commendation. Any who recognize the name might think he was naïve or a bad statesman. But at the time he was implementing reforms any other competent emperor would have done. The problem was the attitude of the senate. Back in the days of old it was to give up yourself for Rome, but in the days of Majorian it was give Rome for yourself. Majorian fought as the breathing embodiment of the roman spirit. He would not allow Rome to fall in the same sense the senate would not bow to Hannibal nor would Aurelian allow the empire to fracture. Majorian reigned as long as he won battles. But once his fleet gone so was he. Could he have saved Rome? No, it was beyond saving. Could he have extended it? Absolutely, he had already done so for the 20 years it continued, if he succeded, why not 50?
The biggest Chad ever to live, no arguing, has to be Aurelian. My man saved empire divided, invented whole f u c 4 ing sun religion and even clapped germanic and scythian people and even middle eastern witch.
Anyone here who watched The Caesars tv series (1968)? Their portrayal of Tiberius was way better than the I,Claudius version of treason trial and indulging in perversion along with his quarrel against Agrippina the Elder.
Domitian is the most underrated emperors , hands down . He did what no emperor could do . He cracked the inflation code !
With the exception of Aurelian or Diocletian, I forgot which one, who fixed inflation by switching to the aureus, a gold coin that would remain stable during much of the early Middle Ages.
The chad Gold Standard vs the virgin fiat currency.
Domitian's impact on dominion is currently debated. He's better than history portrayed him but he's far from a top emperor
@@Duke_of_Lorraine it was Constantine with the introduction of the solidus. The aureus is the gold coin that was replaced. Unfortunately he didn’t do anything for the debasement of silver coinage so it really didn’t correct any underlying problems.
Domitian is my favorite Roman emperor. My 7th grade history teacher said, and I quote “That’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time.” His was Marcus Aurelius. Big surprise.
@@Exeggutor_Enjoyer lol same, my gamer tag is now HeirOfDomitian
Aurelian: *Spares the Life of Zenobia after defeating her*
Romans: "Why did you let her live?"
Aurelian: "You see, I think it was necessary to do it in order to end all this spiral of violence that has devastated the Empire for the last decades. Rome was built, not only with blood, but with wisdom and morality too, even though it seems that the whole world only remembers the blood. As long as there exists only violence, there will only be chaos and lack of control everywhere. Perhaps sparing my enemy's life won't change anything, but what right would I have to call myself emperor if I only thought with my fist and not with my mind? Did Augustus, Marcus Aurelius and many others become gods just with their thirst for blood? I may have started my career as a very bellicose person, but these last few years have completely changed my life. And if I can change, then everybody can change..."
Romans: "You just did it to bang her, right?"
Aurelian: "Yep"
cant blame him
Quid est tē?
Lol Wouldn't blame him. But I doubt he would cheat on his wife, especially with the Emperor of Sol Invictus and the Restutitor Orbis!
@@noonespecial9704
he got her to restore the shine on his orbises...
Have you seen her Fate/Grand Order depiction?
Gallienus played arguably one of the cruelest games of Whac-a-Mole in history: he deals with threats up in the West, then they pop up in the East, during the time I'd honestly argue that Rome was at its absolute worst. It's a testament to his ability that he lasted for fifteen years, during a fifty year period with more than twenty emperors (or claimants).
The efforts of him, Claudius, Auralien and Probus all got retconned by the tetrarchs and no one had any way to verify so they got a bunch of credit for what those four did over 30 years. They held down the empire at the most vulnerable it had been since the end of the Second Punic War.
Gallienus is my favourite emperor, not because he is the greatest at what he did, but because he had such an interesting reign where he had to face so much hardship and still managed to effectively rule.
He's mine to and he also ended the Christian persicution his father started (I'm a religious person)
Me too. He had almost everything against him, like decades of military coups one after the another, which lead to frontiers collapsing without fortresses behind them.
Oh, and his father losing badly at edessa, of course.
All he could do was run around trying to form a decent army, gaining time at the expense of the provinciae.
Not ideal, but definitely far from the worst
I love Gibbon, but he really did dirty to gallienus (and people should really stop using a 3 hundred years book other then for its eccellente style)
Same, easily the most unfairly maligned
Seriously. I'm surprised he even lasted 15 years and didn't die from the sheer amount of stress
One my favourite stories about gallenius which may not be true but hey, is that he challenged postumus to single combat, kind of shows how tired he was of it all.
When Gallienus was eporore A Roman merchant who sold fake jewels was sentenced to face a lion in the arena. When the gate finally opened, a chicken walked out. Gallienus porcelaimed "He practiced deciet and then had it practiced on him"
Gallienus doing a little trolling
What an absolute Chad.
You absolute chadlad. Tiberius, Galienus AND Domitian. 100%. I have always attempted to challenge the narrative of these champs. Though they ruled in very different times, it is apparent that whatever flaws they had are massively eclipsed by their strengths. Roman history is riddled with character assassination that far too many historians accept without question. Great to see you put it on video. Cheers
Wasn't Tiberius a pedo?
I mean, historians are the ones who bring you the info about these figures. You arent smarter.
@@Kbelikar Absolute brainlet response
What do we know about Caligula's, Commodus' and Nero's character assassination? Were they probably decent emperors
@@Octavius0 his point contains a grain of truth: they were simply closer to events.
Propinquity to events often does the heavy lifting.
Take the world’s best historian today vs. Arrian on Alexander the Great. Arrian had access to Ptolemy’s account and others. Simple nearness to events, even if centuries later, makes them weightier- even if Senators don’t like certain Emperors.
Imagine only the negative sources on Augustus survived. You’d still get a lot of truth about the man: his sexual hypocrisy, his ambition, his dependence on Caesar’s name, his dependence on Agrippa, his early ruthlessness.
Shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater and assume the negative sources have 0 value because they’re agenda-driven.
I do not understand why everyone thinks Aurelian is underrated. It’s pretty universally recognized that he was crucial to the Empire's survival, and for ruling only five years, what he accomplished was remarkable. Nobody ever has a bad thing to say about his importance to Rome.
mainstream educators rarely if ever mention or flesh out Aurelian's reign as emperor so he is underrated despite games like "total war rome" making him more popular.
it's a more modern change. Basically people used to just pretty much skip to Diocletian and constantine for expediency sake. This happened in a couple classes I took that covered roman history. Something that confused me greatly as I learned about him through old history channel roman series, and thinking this was the coolest dude. Since then though it's more history series on youtube cover him more extensively and so everyone knows about him much more.
aurelians recognition is only something that has happened within just the past 5 or so years, before then he was pretty much never heard of. I remember when i was learning roman history in the 7th grade the teacher never once mentioned aurelian, it was just "marcus aurelius dies, commodus ruins the empire, crisis of the third century, diocletian divided constantine reconnected" For that matter almost every emperor during the 3rd century was ignored tbh...
@@ilect1690 I 100% agree. After Commodus, it's pretty glossed over. Until the 5/6th century and the Byzantines.
We never learned about him in high school, and we spent at least half a year on Roman history (my country used to be a Roman province). The 3rd century crisis was briefly mentioned and then we had to learn all of Diocletianus' reforms in detail. I found out about Aurelian thanks to Unbiased History and I'm very disappointed no teacher mentioned this badass. Nowadays he's become something of a meme but he deserves it.
If you make an overrated list : Septimius Severus.
After beating an usurper alongside Clodius Abinus, he could have ruled with him as co-emperor and keep the Pax Romana. Instead, he declared war on him to instead have his sons (Caracala and Geta) as co-emperors, debasing the currency to pay for them and the decisive battle being an absolute slaughter of roman troops. We never knew how Geta would have been as an emperor as he switfly got murdered by his brother, who would be a tyrant.
This set the precedent for generals taking power by force without any legitimacy from the Senate and instead switching toward a dynastic system of the strongest, debasing the currency to pay the legions, destroying both political and economic stabilities and paving the way for the Crisis of the Third Century.
The pure slaughter that was the battle of Lugdunum, romans against romans, also decreased the motivation to enter the legion : it's one thing to risk your life to protect your home from barbarians, it's another to be ground meat because some general wants his face on gold coins.
On the long term, Septimius Severus killed the Imperium.
Theodosius I is also pretty overrated.Dude tried to become another Constantine but failed pretty badly.
@@zan4336hey now Theodosius accomplished quite a bit… when he was a child and not actually controlling anything lol
@@deeznoots6241 lmao
Probably going to make some people mad here, but I think Diocletian would need to go on that list.
Yes, he had a lot of reforms. Quite a few of them failed though, especially once he wasn't around to manage them.
I'd say his tax policy was pretty good, but it was on a razors edge due to how much he taxed, and his successors didn't handle it particularly well.
The Tetrarchy was a good idea on paper, but it collapsed immediately after he stepped down.
His price controls were terrible, and collapsed immediately.
He gets a lot of credit for ending the third century crisis, but it was basically already over before he took office. Most of the credit for that should probably go to Claudius II, Aurelian, Probus and Carus.
His policy towards Christians, whilst almost certainly overstated by Christian historians, were bad enough that the west didn't really go through with them. It also didn't really work, as 20 years later, Rome was basically a Christian empire.
The only thing I'd give him unreserved credit for is his administrative reforms, which were both good and necessary.
Let me be clear, I don't think Diocletian is a bad empire. I think he did some good things, and even the bad things he did were well intentioned. That said, top 5 emperor is probably a bit much.
I agree, and would also like to add that the whole Severan Dynasty was a disaster for Rome
7:00 For those interested in a more positive depiction of Tiberius, there is the 1968 mini-series "The Caesars" (considered a precedent for "I, Claudius", but with less sensationalism). In that show, (which takes place from the last days of Augustus until the death of Caligula), André Morell plays a prudent and honorable Tiberius, who tries to be a good Emperor despite not wanting such position. The scene in which the Emperor bursts into tears after learning of the murder of his son by Sejanus and the massacre that followed is simply unforgettable
Thanks for the recommendation.
Glad that the Crisis of 3rd Century boys like Gallienus and Aurelian getting some proper overdue recognition... being handed the empire at that time was definitely like playing the game in Deity mode when compared to emperors like Antoninus Pius and Hadrian who had a strong and stable empire to manage from the beginning
True, but still think that Hadrian IS the top of the top. The guy was born to be emperor. And he even was successful with the succession.
that might be true but maintaining peace for 21 years was absolutely based especially in Antoninus Pius' case.
@@FazeParticles seriously though his letter to the Persians "hey don't do that or I might do something about it" and then they stopped, while possibly not true is some serious based Chad energy
Hadrian wasn't exactly playing on easy mode since the Senate basically hated him and were possibly plotting to kill him for years but couldn't figure out how, since he was on the road and upgrading the empires defenses non stop
People often forget about Vespasian 😉
He is not underated bro he already got enough respect for a decent Emperor
@@adude849 it's a reference to his original Roman Emperors video
@@cronoros Wym
@@cronoros Tbh I think his son is more underated
He ranked all the Roman Emperors but forgot to include Vespasian
Valens is pretty underrated because of battle of Adrianople. In reality, he was a good emperor who had to deal with the mess left behind by Julian ths Apostate after he(Julian) miserably failed to defeat the Persians, kept the Eastern Roman Empire relatively stable and tried to incorporate the Goths into Roman army, a task which was failed by his subordinates while he was away from the Balkans. He used to campaign against the Goths beyond the Danube victoriously(that's why the Goths didn't revolt till they were forced to by the subordinates of Valens). He finished the largest aqueduct in Constantinople, known as aqueduct of Valens, and in the battle of Adrianople he didn't run but rallied his men and fought till the bitter end. A heroic death for a true Roman. But instead this one battle that cost him his life is used to diminish him to a mediocre or bad emperor.
Valentinian I literally rage quit his life and Valens fell like a champ.
Agreed! Like imagine being treated like shit because of your mistakes! Like wtf?
Gotta feel for Tiberius. Forced to do a job he never wanted, in a family where he was never treated as part of the inner circle, surrounded by plotters and schemers who ensured the last of the JC line was gonna be weirdos and lunatics. The Flavian Dynasty doesnt get enough credit for taking the framework of the previous dynasty and running with it.
Majorian is to me to most underrated of all
He almost became aurelian
Constantius II is that type of emperor you'd want to use as an example of how your time as a late Roman emperor would be. (If you lasted your whole life on the throne)
Aurelian couldn't have done what he did without Gallienus
so is claudius II
Appreciate the shoutouts to my boy, Constantius II.
Dude worked insanely hard, must say. For someone who is regarded as being short tempered, he didn't show it much in his policy. He actually didn't start any civil wars, but only reacted to uprisings that happened around him. And when he did have to mobilize against Magnentius and later Julian, Constantius made sure that he could negotiate a ceasefire with the battle against the Sassanids and in the case of Magnentius he even let him retreat after fighting in Pannonia because he focused on ensuring the Rhine region was secure before following.
And he was willing to swallow his pride when it came to Julian. I don't really think that Constantius was conspiring against Julian (he exiled Marcellus) but I do think that he wasn't really fond of the boy, so being able to recognize that a power vacuum was the last thing that the empire needed and Julian was the most competent guy around he was able to abdicate.
Speaking of Uncle Claudius, I’m surprised he isn’t on this list. While that the general consensus is no longer that he is a bumbling fool, I still don’t think the Uncle Claudius gets the love and recognition he truly deserves.
I don’t know if he deserved to be on this list, he might’ve. but he was definitely underrated.
Many people overlook this good Emperor. Such was life for Uncle Claudius...
Because he's known as a great emperor?
he DEFINITELY gets the love he deserves. some have him on the top 5 for gods sake
I was kind of thinking the same thing. I was definitely expecting Aurelian, Domitian, Claudius, and Antoninus.
Probus is an Emperor I think is underrated, even more so than Aurelian. He was like Aurelian pt.2 continuing what Aurelian did in reasserting discipline in the Legions, but was noted for being less harsh and more of a workaholic with his troops. With how well regarded Aurelian is compared to the often forgotten Probus he might have been more fitting for the list.
The late Crisis of the Third Century had A LOT of OP people running around at once.. You have Gallienus, Aurelian , Claudius Gothicus , Constancius I , Diocletian , Valerian , and more all alive at the same time ... and most served in the cav together. Talk about a time of giants... without these amazing people all being alive at the same time and all their hard work they each put in.. its likely Rome wouldnt have survived.
There were just as many people like Maximinus Thrax, Constantine the second, Trembonialus Gallus, and 3 million usurpers.
I apologize for the butchered spelling.
@@Exeggutor_Enjoyer Its okay I know who you mean xD
These heroes of Rome were admirable. However, I think it shows the state Rome was in. From the Severan dynasty onward (Severus and Caracalla contributed greatly to the Crisis of the Third Century), the Empire required heroes just to survive for any prolonged period of time. As Tominus Maximus said, in its late period, almost no one saw Rome as worth saving.
One thing to consider about Tiberius as well is that Augustus really did not want Tiberius as his heir, he really wanted Germanicus or one of his blood relatives. So considering that he spend his whole life being the backup, I'd say he did pretty well.
Glad to see Gallienus heading this list. One more of his accomplishments was acting as a patron to Plotinus, the founder of the philosophical school of Neoplatonism, which had a profound intellectual impact on late antiquity, both pagan and Christian thinkers.
I'd say do an Overrated Emperors video next... and I can list a few who would go on it....
One, Septimius Severus... killed the one man who could have been a perfect co-emperor with him and continued the Pax Romana... but no, try assassinating him, fail, and then pursue him with an army to defeat him, only then to tax the roman people and devalue the empire's currency to pay for your sons to be co-emperors, one of whom would be one of the worst tyrants the empire had...
Another is Diocletian... his position is unique because while he did many great things to stabilize to Empire during his twenty years in power, quite a few of his reforms failed, and many that did succeed, were placed right next to a line in the sand, and when he stepped down, they fell apart pretty fast....
Not to mention quite a bit what he and Maximian, are credited for... really came from the good barracks emeprors during the crises of the third century, Gallienus, Probus, Claudius Gothicus, and Aurelian, and maybe the crises would have ended sooner, had their reigns been longer and their armies not suddenly deciding to kill each of them... ( except Gothicus, he died of plague )
My list:
10. Claudius Gothicus
9. Carus
8. Vespasian
7. Tiberius
6. Valentinian I
5. Majorian
4. Gallienus
3. Probus
2. Constantius II
1. Domitian
Tiberius is for me the most underrated. He had to solidify an institution created by and for Augustus and make it long lasting. You can always argue Augustus was just a Glorified Dictator created by the senate, it was Tiberius made the role unique into something new as he wasnt appointed the same way as Caesar, Augustus, Sulla etc. He was extremely unpopular among the senate for this reason he was beyond their classical power status quo that had existed since the beginning of the republic and so naturally the wealthy disliked him but you cant reign for over 20 years without backing and with that popularity. During his reign Germania was stabilised and as a broader scale the whole empire and he was literally the chosen heir of Augustus how was a well known advocate of meritocracy which itself should show his worth.
Have to disagree. Augustus only chose him as a last resort. Also, the institutions of the Principate were largely in place when Augustus died. The man ruled for two generations.
@@aaronclarke1434 His original heir may have died out but Augustus build that generation of administrator, followers and military men so he may be last but only option id say would be a stretch I'm sure Augustus would have had several options like he did through his life obviously we can never say that but we can't also say the opposite. Augustus was a glorified individual and any retroactively clear succession establish pre death can easily be violated post death with easy examples like Alexander, Charles III of Austria, Diocletian and these examples are tradionally legitmised while this was the first succession and you can't even use that phrase tbh if you compare the passing of royal titles passing from Philip to Alexander from Louis XIV to Louis XV from Elizabeth II to Charles this was something else. Like mentioned the Roman empire would have had several popular powerful men with either military backing from Augustus conquests, his high administrative/governer offices or being old order political giants which there would be all 3 of in the administrating of massive empire and yet Tiberius internally had a stable rule outside of the senate getting pissed
@@paul_5848 but that’s not right because Augustus, by having Egypt as his personal property, paid the legions himself. They owed complete loyalty to the Princeps. Their Sacramentum was to him, despite ambiguous appearances. He has Maius Magisterium.
He controlled the upper part of the cursus honorum. Only those Senators in the upper part could have provinces and therefore legions.
One Augustus scholar said he was like a man alone at the top of a tree exhorting people at its base. It really was the institution of the Principate that bestowed these things once it had evolved with the Senate handing him more and more powers. He wasn’t a coalition builder. He was the sole victor of a civil war.
Which Tiberius dynastically inherited. Augustus saw a line of succession from Venus to Aeneas to Caesar to him to his dynasty. Just as even Commodus could survive for a time on Marcus Aurelius’ word, so anyone Augustus named would’ve had every advantage and have to actively try to screw it up, which Tiberius nearly did.
I love to imagine an alternate history where Agrippa lives a long life.
If not for Gallienus the west would’ve fallen much sooner. He kept it together and paved the way for Claudius ii, Aurelian, and Probus
I would've had a stroke if Gallienus wasn't number one. Easily the most punished emperor in history. This man inspires the same absolute respect and admiration that Constantine XI does.
Tiberius was a victim of lack of self esteem . Look at Augustus ' will .
"I never did like you , but I guess you're gonna be Emperor , anyways ."
Also like: 'I had a plan A, plan B, plan C, plan D in order NOT to name you my heir, but all failed so here we go boi.. I'll name you my heir..'
@@CommonSenz Tiberius was the Rodney Dangerfield of Roman Emperors
" I get no respect"
@@CommonSenz awesome comment!
Augustus also forced Tiberius to divorce his wife, whom he loved, in favor of the Emperor's scandalous daughter.
Gallienus is so hated for no reason
Awesome list as always, your insight never gets old!
It's incomplete!
Fantastic video keep it up your doing amazing job
Keeping in mind your previous video on the Roman emperors rankings I was sure to find Domitian on the top of this list. But you managed to keep the suspense. ))
I definitely agree with Domitian and Galienus being the two most underrated emperors, great list!! The only thing that I would change is I would probably add Julian the apostate somewhere on the list, and would probably even add Antoninus Pius as well
Great list! If you ever make a list of overrated emperors, I would have some suggestions.
Nerva (because of the “five good emperors)
Septimius Severus (praised for ending civil wars that he started, initiated lots of trends that weakened the empire in the long run, like debasement and overpaying the army)
Julian the Apostate (started a war with Persia to gain legitimacy and died, leaving the empire in a weaker position)
Theodosius the Great (his solution for the goths led to many problems for the empire and destroyed many western armies, leaving both half’s of the empire in a weakened position at the star of the V century)
Carus and Probus gotta be honorable mentions
You are so underrated too! You need a lot more subs❤
I agree with all of these, another person I would add to this list is Nero. He was actually very popular with the common people during his reign. And he wasn’t in Rome when it burned.
Nero definitely wasn't a bad Emperor. He was just incapable. It didn't matter at first, because Seneca, Agrippina, and Burrus were keeping him in check.
Without them, he had no hope of maintaining power.
Que bom é ver um canal com tão bom conteúdo, ainda por cima feito por um português.
Continua o bom trabalho 😉
A good list..glad to see constantius ii here..a cold blooded bastard but conmpetent who knew what his duties were.
Domitian was the best. Given nothing to start he did everything well .
I always thought gallienus got the worst hand dealt to him. No matter how tirelessly he seems to have worked he suffered one trsgedy after another and one overwhelming problem after another.
This is a great list, you are a real hero..
Aurelian is the most worshipped Emperor in modern times. How can he be underrated? Btw, he was the third "restitutor" after Valerian and Gallienus.
He's a favourite of Romaboos and those that like Rome, however he's still very underrated when looking and the wider public, as most people don't know who Aurelian is.
@@deltafighter3986 That can be said for every other Roman emperor though, aside from maybe Constantine and Marcus Aurelius
He meant underrated in the way that most of those not familiar with Roman history have no idea who Aurelian is unlike other big names as Augustus or Constantine (even Nero or Caligula). Considering his achievements he deserves far more recognition.
I agree with you, he's probably more overrated than underrated now
Domitian only executed 11 senators, in comparison Claudius had 35 senators and 300 equestrians executed or forced to commit suicide.
Probus needs to be on this list
Now a top 10 tragic/impactful Roman deaths would be great too either Emperors or General deaths or top 10 Roman Betrayals
Number 1 Majorian
1-10: Aurelian
caesar and aurelian had the same story so tied at 1st
@@randomguy6152 well after Caesar or Aurelian the empire didn't fall and it Majorian's preparations to invade Africa weren't sabotaged it would have been impressive comeback for the western empire
Caesar's death and the subsequent death of the """""Liberators""""" gave the death blow to the Republic. Granted, it was already dying after Gaius Marius' military reforms.
"No Byzantines on this list" kind of weird to just cut a massive chunk of Roman emperors out but great video none the less
Gallienus saved the Empire. Aurelian restored it.
You should check out Omniatlas - they have the best maps on the Empire!
I suggest you also rank the Roman kings who ruled during 753BC-509BC
Great idea
Not enough sources
Now we need a top 10 overrated emperors. I want flaming hot takes.
Septimius Severus, Justinian I, and Domitian comes to mind.
Romaboos only really love Domitian in particular only because he fixed the coin system. His military failures in the dacian wars was pretty horrible.
Diocletian BY FAR. Although he ruled the tetrarchy and brought stability to the economy, he slaughtered Roman citizens, including children, due to their religion on such a scale it lead to a noticeable decline and future disloyalty, forcing people to keep the jobs of their parents, and the fact his tetrarchy ultimately failed the moment he resigned, and became exactly what he tried to avoid in the first place: A Christian dominated nation ruled by a single man who brought back succession by blood. Plus there's belief he organized the deaths of some emperors, including Carus. Dude was straight up power hungry and had the perfect alibi to look like everything was under control...by being the only guy who knew how the system worked. Just look at Constantine's version of the Tetrarchy. It was just a worse version.
fun fact, aurelian was actually the cavalry commander responsible for the victory at the battle of naissus
1. Theodosius I
2. Valentinian I
3. Gallienus
4. Domitian
5. Septimus Severus
6. Constans I
7. Valens
8. Tiberius I
9. Constantius II
10. Severus Alexander
My Top 10 underrated emperors.
1. Odoacer
2. Geiseric
3. Alaric
No Majorian? He was like the last hurrah of Rome. The incarnation of what was and never again to be. He could not save Rome but his efforts were truly commendable. Perhaps it's a bit of romanticizing yet it does feel like that when you understand his situation. He's in this video yet I see almost no comments on him.
It'd be grate if u put lyrics in ur videos because i'm spanish and i have some problems to understand some things. Nice content
Glad to see Claudius Gothic, although he was extremely popular at his time and could have ended the crisis of the third century, most people don't even know who he is.
Bro you seem so quick with doing your roman videos, it feels like you really don't like the other vids.
(Btw Sponsianus is by far the most underrated emperor, he is so underrated, we don't even know if he existed!)
Vespasian and Claudius are easily the most underrated
Correct, and both belong to the top 5!
Wholeheartedly agree with the top 2 placements. Would love to see a list of overrated emperors. I can think of several names that belong there like Theodosius, Septimius Severus, and especially Justinian
Justinian isn't overrated, he largely got fucked over by the Justinian Plague. Which was the black death. Not like Europe handled that well centuries later.
@@micahbonewell5994 And yet he didn't let that stop him from trying to assert control over Italy.
Could you do a video about Lithuania/Poland, I'd appreciate that greatly
I am quite surprised to see Aurelian here. Every time I see him, I wonder if I could ever be so grossly incandescent.
Could you also do underrated eastern roman emperors ?
Majorian is my favorite emperor
At this point Aurelian is a bit overhyped. dont get me wrong, he was cool and I would rank him in top 10 emperrors, but he isnt underrated by anyone. Also he basically profited from the Gallienic reforms and Claudius Gothiccus success. At this point, Probus and Carus, who succeeded him are way more underrated, even tough they were also pretty successful
Aurelian is far from underrated
Maybe you can do a part 2.
New sub
Galienus' spot at number one is absolutely deserVed. Reading about all the shit he had to deal with as Emperor and seeing him come on top of it all and nearly bring the Gallic Empire back into the fold was a wild ride. Rome would've ended had it been under a lesser man at the time.
He was a great emperor at a time where being a great emperor simply wasn't enough
Gallenius is my favorite emperor just because of the position he was put in and that he didn’t fold. Man needs respect on his name.
You really put aurelian on a list of underated people
Valentinian was very good at putting out fires on the border. Only problem is you can argue he set some of them.
Antoninus Pious could get an honourable mention probably
He sent out the first group of Roman traders to reach China that's pretty underrated
@@illman8876 yeah he's completely overshadowed by Hadrian,Trajan and Marcus Aurelius
I like how the automatic subtitles keep saying Garlic Empire, the Gods (for the Goths), and Maxentius as Max Sanchez
Here's an idea for a video, what would you have done to save the empire at a certain point in its history. In other words what went wrong and made it inevitable
I’d like to point out Maxentius wasn’t the last emperor to reside in rome as anthemius, glycerius, olybruis, and Julius nepos all resided there
Worst thing about Aurelian is, according to Wikipedia, it's the fault of a random secretary trying to cover his own ass after a mess-up that he ended up getting killed.
Uh, Maxentius was not "the last Roman Emperor to reside in Rome"...
Where did you get that from? I mean, for one, Constantine resided in Rome immediately after him. Even the later Western Roman Emperors like Valentinian III, Libius Severus and Anthemius all resided in Rome.
If this was a Byzantine list, my top three would be Heraclius, Justin I, and Constantine XI (not necessarily in that order), with heavy honorable mentions to Maurice, Zeno, and Theodore I.
my man gallienus on top as he deserves, and i think you forgot carus, dude so underrated he aint even here
Honorable mentions: Valens, Antoninus Pius, Alexander Severus.
Aurelien The Golden Emperor
Underrated Roman Empresses when 👀 also why weren’t the late late Roman Emperors included? Was really looking forward to them
Majorian?
@@crimsonterror5795 no no. Justinian and the other Byz bros
Yeah. Leo III, Constantine V, Nikephoros II, John I Tzimiskes and Isaac I Komnenos are all very underrated Emperors of Rome imo.
@@Jg-jg6jb this guy accepts the western emperors as Roman but not the eastern ones.
This just goes to show that the empire ended in 476 for him.
He literally made a video about how the romanity of "Byzantines" is completely subjective, which is of course total bullshit.
Not gonna take this guy seriously anymore.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard oh I didnt know that. Kind of lame considering how he has pretty decent content, but I guess everyone has their own views and opinions on history no matter how revisionist it might be.
I've always wondered what might happen in Gallienus was never assassinated. Might he have taken Aurelian's role in the timeline?
He would have defeated the Goths in the Battle of Naissus, and eventually defeat the Gallic Empire (because he almost did once before getting wounded). Maybe not as great as Aurelian, but certainly a viable replacement.
@@aaronTGP_3756 recent histography indicate that it is more likely than gallineus was the one leading the Romans at the battle of naissus not claudius gothicus
@@purplen33t17 I was just going from the orthodox consensus. But I personally agree: Gallienus definitely won.
Now for headcanon: Claudius II, a minor officer had Gallienus assassinated. He proved his military worth by winning the Battle of Lake Benacus, but showed incompetence when the city of Autun defected to him, but he refused to help. This soured relations with Zenobia. So he sent someone to subdue her. This man failed and Zenobia decided to abandon her loyalty to Rome. Meanwhile, Claudius was busy trying to fight the defenseless Goths in the Thracian mountains (probably wanting an easy victory). Only due to Postumus getting killed for refusing to sack Mainz and the subsequent turmoil in Gaul, Spain defected to Rome and Placidianus was able to subdue the Rhone Valley. His general Aurelian was planning a conspiracy, but they got lucky and Claudius died of plague. Aurelian was proclaimed Emperor by the army, while Claudius' brother Quintillus gained allies in Rome.
When things had cooled down under Diocletian, he successfully eliminated most memory of the late crisis emperors, especially for gallienus and aurelian. Decades later, Claudius' relative Constantine used the limited knowledge to their advantage, using propaganda to make Claudius II a hero and conqueror of the Goths, and attributed his misdeeds to Gallienus, and Gallienus' great victory to Claudius II.
Is this mostly made up? Essentially yes, but I guess I just really hate Claudius II, who is overrated. He was really just another 3rd century Emperor: a half-decent general who had a short reign.
Watching this with my 3 month old son so he can learn early
What about Anthemius? The last competent emperor of the WRE
I still think Aurelian should be #1. As long as he does not share the fame of Augustus and Trajan, he is massively underrated.
If I had a nickel for every rebellion Gallienus had to put down...
you'd be a millionaire
Do you mean a sestertius?
@@julianhermanubis6800 I wish it was an aureus my friend
If Silbannacus was really Roman emperor and Ulpia Severina was really Roman empress, then they are the most underrated by far, since almost no one even knows they exist
Then there's the 3rd century Dacian usurper Sponsian, who we basically know nothing about.
@@aaronTGP_3756 most likely becase he dint exist
"Manu ad ferrum" Imperator Caesar Lucius Domitius Aurelianus Gothicus Germanicus Parthicus Augustus "Restitutor Orbis"
english translation: "Hand on hilt" Emperor Caesar Lucian Domitian Aurelian Gothicus Germanicus Parthicus Augustus ",Restorer of the World"
will never be forgotten he my favorite emperor ever and is the only man besides for constantine to manage to rule with 1 emperor, 1 empire, and 1 god
can you make I video about ranking every Hungarian king pls I will like and sub to you!
Flavivus Stilicho if only he took power as Emperor then he would’ve been on this list but instead he was a Loyal General half barbarian fighting for Rome and was betrayed and so Rome started its descent and down fall well west Rome east Rome lasted way longer
@Gay Gay true, Theodosius II was the nephew of Honorius. This would have caused a civil war.
@Gay Gay true but then again it’s all about who can win the battles to become the leader/Emperor and no one would blame him seeing as how corrupt or betrayal ridden the Empire was but hey in his death he was more respected then all of his foes
Nice
I agree with your list, altough I am sorely missing Julian and Galerius. Mostly the former.. Julian was Marcus Aurelius reborn and with his death the last candle for the hope of another glorious period of Rome was extinguished.
Julian is overrated. He didn't rule for long, and his attempts to bring back paganism did more harm than good. Not to mention his glory seeking attempt to take Mesopotamia ended in the deaths of many Roman soldiers. He really wanted to be Trajan, but he was more so Marc Anthony.
Julian was trash, only pagan LARPers like him.
"no byzantines are on this list"
me: ight imma head out
My List
10. Carus
9. Quintillus
8. Titus
7. Lucius Verus
6. Tiberius
5. Carus
4. Majorian
3. Nero
2. Constantius Chlorus
1. Domitian
PS- I thought that Constantius Chlorus ruled from 305-306. Are we thinking of different people?
Vespasian? For me, should be top of the list.
Majorian was not the greatest emperor. But he sure wasn't one who went out without commendation. Any who recognize the name might think he was naïve or a bad statesman. But at the time he was implementing reforms any other competent emperor would have done. The problem was the attitude of the senate. Back in the days of old it was to give up yourself for Rome, but in the days of Majorian it was give Rome for yourself. Majorian fought as the breathing embodiment of the roman spirit. He would not allow Rome to fall in the same sense the senate would not bow to Hannibal nor would Aurelian allow the empire to fracture. Majorian reigned as long as he won battles. But once his fleet gone so was he. Could he have saved Rome? No, it was beyond saving. Could he have extended it? Absolutely, he had already done so for the 20 years it continued, if he succeded, why not 50?
HB nero. Character Assasination for sure. The senate likes to attack him for doing so much wrong when he was actually well liked by the lower class
The biggest Chad ever to live, no arguing, has to be Aurelian. My man saved empire divided, invented whole f u c 4 ing sun religion and even clapped germanic and scythian people and even middle eastern witch.
Jovian and Valentinian, back to back emperors and the TWO funniest deaths on your other list. Draw your own conclusions
Imagine being handed rule of the Roman Empire at the age of 14 like Elagabalus.
Was sitting through this list thinking "If he doesn't mention Gallienus I will have issues".
That man deserves recognition
Julian the Apostate.
Anyone here who watched The Caesars tv series (1968)? Their portrayal of Tiberius was way better than the I,Claudius version of treason trial and indulging in perversion along with his quarrel against Agrippina the Elder.
Next up top 10 eastern Roman Empire defeats and victories. And Top 10 Roman Empire victories.