"Worst Roman emperor" Topic

Who was in your opinion the worst Emperor and why ?

Sigh. By what criteria do you measure "worst"?

Litle Boots no governins skills and a complete despot, but also remember Nero! Mike Adams

Sigh. By what criteria do you measure "worst"?

He who and why…your criteria.

Valens. In getting himself killed at Adrianople, he showed the Barbarian hordes that Rome was not invincible. Rome was already starting to decline but Adrianople marked a sharp turn south on the charts.

I would say that the worst Roman Emperors… were the ones no one remembers. Most would be Emperors wanted to be Emperor for the power and the glory… and if no one remembers their names, that pretty much sums up how much power and glory they really had.

In recent years, a convincing case has been made that Theodosius set in force a number of events that fatally weakened the Western Roman Empire. After he died, the West could not contain the barbarians after 407AD, which led to the eventual fall of Rome.

"He who and why…your criteria."

That's just it. I don't have any criteria unless the OP tells me what they should be.

Witness all the suggestions so far. Everyone has their own opinion, but you cannot compare (say) Valens with Theodosius unless you have some criteria by which to do so.

Joaquin Phoenix made a really crappy Roman emperor. Sir Alec Guinness, on the other hand, made a fine Roman emperor, and so did Sir Derek Jacobi.

I require no external criteria to make this assessment.

Peter Ustinov – too hammy

Yeah, I'd have to go with Allen on the Joaquin Phoenix dude. He really is lousy as an emporer. His sister would have done a better job than he did…

After all, the movies are accurate … aren't they?

John Hurt was pretty gross.

Dom DeLuise – pretty poor but good for laughs

How about that actor that played the emperor in the movie Quo Vadis?

Worst Roman Emperor: Augustus. He broke the Republic, after all.

You all just proved my point by interpreting the question as "actors who have played emperors" rather than "historical characters".

Do you possess a sense of humour Mike? Or is your world completely literal?

Anyway, it's strange how these things keep cropping up

link

link

now the best was Kenneth Williams

Infamy, Infamy! They've all got it in for me! :-)

John Hurt was pretty gross.

On a gross criteria, I'd instead suggest Malcolm McDowell.

What, nobody voted for Elagabulus? Awful politician, but gets props for being murdered by his own Praetorian Guard, and for inventing the whoopee cushion…

Worst Roman Emperor: Augustus. He broke the Republic, after all.

It was already pretty well smashed. All he did was sweep it up into the wastebasket.
Forthe life of me, I can't see why the Republic keeps getting such favorable press. Totally inefficient, and as brutal or worse than any Emperor.

On a gross criteria, I'd instead suggest Malcolm McDowell.

On that same note, Peter O'Toole was pretty vile too.

Nero gets a bad press because of the christians he burnt, fed to lions etc.

Apart from that he was one ot the better ones.
As for claims of madness lead has a bad effect on the brain and the posher the house there more lead was used in plumbing.

Another vote for Nero for the reasons Black Tower cites.

A second for Elagabalus. Effete sun worshiper!

I tend to agree with Eclectic Wave, however out of the known characters Gaius Caligula has a special place in my heart for dastardly and insane acts. You have to give "special praise" to a evil nut that makes his horse a senator, declared war on Neptune, made the senator wives into prostitutes (does this include the horse's wife, Penelope?), murdered pretty indiscriminately, assassinated by his own guards, incest with his sister, drove the nation broke with his orgies, (gross) interest in boys taking his "virginity", etc.

Nero was bad, but one has to remember he managed to stay alive as Emperor 3 times as long as Caligula and took that long to achieve somewhat similar negative results. Something to say for that. In addition, Nero did commission some important architectural achievements like the golden house, better urban building codes, and the marvel of the giant statue of himself (The famous fire was really a plot to clear and gain access to the land for the house and his other architecture. projects). Even his persecutions of Jews and Christians has to be seen in the light (no endorsement from me) that they were popular at the time.

"Do you possess a sense of humour Mike? Or is your world completely literal?"

I don't think the OP asked the question in that vein …
However making fun of it is about all you can do when there are no boundaries.

Take that as a 'no' then

It's got to be Marcus Aurelius Claudius Quintillus, he only managed 17 days at the top.

"Take that as a 'no' then"

OK. What was the question again (seeing as you asked two)?

Of course if you want humour:
Q. What do you call a Roman emperor with the flu?
A. Julius Sneezer.

Teacher: Who can tell me where Hadrian's Wall is?
Pupil: I expect it's around Hadrian's garden miss!

Teacher: How was the Roman Empire cut in half?
Pupil: With a pair of Caesars!

Better. Now you just need to improve your delivery and

timing

Caesar. He was so horrid that his own Senate plotted and carried out his assassination. Had he been any good, they would have embraced him, rather than killing him.

JW

I'm with Doc Bedlam,Elagabalus

Didius Julianus – thought he'd bought the Empire, but forgot to keep the receipt…

Valentininian wanted to make Valens his co-emperor and was sadviced by one of his generals, "by all means do so if you are thinking first for your family, but if you are thinking what's bst for the State, anybody else." Kind of a damning recommendation there me thinks.

Though you got to nominate Elabadalus for total outrageous Emperor though. Afterall he was raised to be an hysterially effeminate chief priestess of the Gyrian Sun God. I heartily recommend "Family Favorites" as a fictional retelling of his reign.

Valerian- he was captured and humiliated by the Sassanid Emperor Shapur after all

second for valerian

The first ten million years were the worst. The second ten million years, they were the worst too.

Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus.
For;
legalising the pagans, later to be known as christians;
founding Constantinopolis smack bang on poor little Byzantium;
summoning the Council of Nicaea;
becoming a christian while retaining the title Pontifex Maximus;
being baptised on his death-bed; (covering all bases)
banning circumcisation of slaves;
banning gladitorial events;
christians calling him "the Great" after he died;
had his eldest son Crispus, seized and put to death; and,
had his wife (Empress Fausta), killed at the behest of his mother.
(what a tool)

any votes for Caracalla, not a nice person, Valens was a clown who lost at adrinapole beacuse he didn't want to share the glory. who was the clown who maneged to get rome sacked by the goths beacuse he kept listening to stupid advisors.

Commodus, with Caligula a close second, only because Caligula may actually had some more brains. And Markus Aurelius for instead of following the example of the best emperor's behind him, made his son emperor.

caligula was mad and not a very good emperor. One could argue that claudius though sucessful needlessly wasted money on invading england( which was a drain on resources better used elsewere in the empire) which had later serious consquences and which proabbly made it easier for the germanic tribe. Nero was a self obessed spoilt brat who had an overly oppion of himself but he was probably not the worst.

Musso was pretty rank but he got the trains running on time.

Augustus, for pretending to offer to step down every year and accepting the Senate's offer to remain in power: what a lying, priggish, self-serving creep. Long live the Republic!

Forthe life of me, I can't see why the Republic keeps getting such favorable press. Totally inefficient, and as brutal or worse than any Emperor.

You probably think that the current Republic is "broken" too. You waiting for BO to "sweep it into the wastebasket"?

It's the ideal/thought that counts: lose the idea of freedom and government by representation, and you lose any chance of the reality. (PM me and we can argue, or join TBF, why dontcha?)…

What do you expect from Roddy MacDowell.

He used to claim to be Liz Taylor's brother then changed his mind…

*sharp intake of breath*

It's the ideal/thought that counts: lose the idea of freedom and government by representation, and you lose any chance of the reality. (PM me and we can argue, or join TBF, why dontcha?)…

<sidesteps modern politics>

If you believe that the Roman republic was a representational democracy you are seriously deluded.

Sulla. He was emperor in all but name, and, if any one man could really be said to have "broken the republic" it was him.

If you believe that the Roman republic was a representational democracy you are seriously deluded.

Oh they were, they thought of themselves as representational. They just weren't elected by any shade of popular vote. And of course, the plebs weren't included in the representation, at, all. But all things come over time; and in Rome's case, tyranny was what came, rather continuing the Republic: which, if it had, would conceivably have evolved to include representatives of the lower orders in the senate, just as the House of Commons became integral to Brit gov't much later….