Greatest Roman Emperors

He was called Trajan the proud.

He was an excellent emperor but he valued his own personal glory more than the glory of the empire. He just wanted to conquer more lands even though he knew Rome couldn't keep em. He streched Romes resources to the limit which wasn't a good thing in the long term.

Traianus was really the greatest rome emperor for many reasons. Even for antique Romans alone!

Trajan, by far, was the greatest emperor, he restored the title to what emperor was under Augustus, especially given the damage caused by everyone from Tiberius to Domitian which included some of the worst emperors rome ever saw, pushed the empire to the furthest boundaries and secured the empire's future of prosperity all the way to 192 ad by choosing Hadrian as his successor who choose Marcus Aurelius. Theer is a reason why he is listed as as one of the four "Good emperors"; and really was the start sense Nerva served only two years.

he's the best Roman emporor the senate even gave him the title 'optimus' for restoring freedom

If Trajan is not in the Top Ten then this list is a joke if not completely worthless. He should really be included somewhere between #2 - #5

he was the #1 nobody did more to the greatest empire then anybody brought more money home built more things for his people and had one of the best military careers ever

The unified roman empire had its greatest size in his rule, Trajan was a very good emperor!

"felicior Augusto, melior Traiano"

And some of pagan religion ruled over Roman Empire instead of Christianity and maybe in Aurelians days paganism has still chance to beat down christianity. And world today could has been better. Christianity belongs to its beginnings, when was little underground sect. It´s time to change back to human roots and nature and restitute some native believe. Christianity ruled too long over great part of world and nothing better change. They can only pray and who could help praying? Christianity helped to fall Roman Empire. And maybe helping slowly to fall all of our Earth, but we don´t see that.Sorry about these strange worlds and bad english.

An outstanding emperor! No other emperor comes even close to his accomplishments. Roman empire would probably exist to this day if this guy could've ruled few decades more.

Aurelianus The Great should be known. He helped to save Rome Empire. The second place is excellent for him, because is not so known like for example Marcus Aurelius, Octavianus, Hadrianus or Constantinus. And So Hard and Succesful Work in only 5 years of ruling!!! Thats Right to vote him so high!

In a mere 5 years,he did what even Caeser himself would not be able to do. Thanks to his reign,the roman culture would last for 1200 more years and more importantly lead to the rise of Christianity. In my eyes he should be No 1,but seeing how the public rate him all the way to No2 make me smile a bit. :)

Why is he not higher? He brought back the Gallic and Palymyran Empire into the fold and did this all in only five years. Who knows what he could have done had his reign been longer!

Started the great recovery of the late 3rd century, killed by people who immediately regretted it.

Diocletian may have done a lot to restore the Empire and help it to survive longer than it otherwise would have, but he also did incredible harm to the Empire and Europe in general. In addition to his persecution of the Christians (which was really more Galerius than Diocletian), he solidified trade guilds in such a way that people and their progeny could no longer change professions. He essentially started the proto-serfdom that would define the European economy for the next thousand years, and slow the progress of European innovation incredibly. Boo to Diocletian.

Most Interesting Rome Emperor for me. And tragic person. One Of the Best Rome Rulers - Diplomats who lived in age when world changed, but not like he wanted. Look to wikipedia, to make the idea about his life. Great man with great ideas!!!

A great emperor, who brought back stability to the Roman empire, even though the tetrarchy did start to fall apart after he abdicated.

He was not strong enough to govern the empire alone and had to rely on others to rule. A very poor general who had even lost the battle for the control for the empire, fortunately for Diocletain his rival Carinus was murdered at the moment of his triumph by one of his own. Carinus was quite poor as a general therefore Diocletain was indeed poorer.

A monster who killed people because of their religious beliefs. Please don't write nonsense that Constantine did so because its not true STOP DISTORTING HISTORY

It's criminal that the guy who basically gave the Roman Empire an extra 100 years still appears on 'Worst Roman Emperor' lists just because he was hard on the Christians - a group aggressively changing Roman society ('paganism' would be made illegal a generation after Constantine). Talk about cultural bias.

An empire is made up of citizens. And killing those citizens over silly religious matters is a bad move. Also, breaking up the empire is a greatly debatable move. Either way, he doesn't deserve the top 5.

ehhhh I don't think he should have split the empire. I guess at the time it wasn't a bad idea but in time the two halves began to drift apart the Eastern side to become more Greek and Oriental while the West more Germanic.

Constantine did too. We are voting on good emperors not good people.

He killed thousands of innocents in religious persecutions.

A very lucky ruler but also a very solid one. Every now and then a steady and unspectacular hand is needed at the wheel.

Overrated. Although times where good he did not face long term problems facing the Empire and allowed the Parthian Empire to build up to much power.

It's sad that he's mostly forgotten. He had the longest reign since Augustus. He had NO major wars, NO tawdry rumors said about him (in fact he only married one woman over his entire life), NO political or religious persecutions. During his reign the empire had it's greatest peace and prosperity.

Great emperor. Had to deal with wars, financial problems and a great plague early in his reign so all those people saying he didn't do much for the empire is dumb. As a philosopher he was one of the fairest emperors. His only real flaw, his son.

Shouldn't really be this high, Diocletian, Constantine and Aurelian all gave so much more to the empire. He was a good emperor but just like how Caracella is Septimus Severus' bad legacy, Commodus is his very bad legacy.

Maybe the only true intellectual to ever rule a major empire or nation, people still read his phillosphy. Shame about the son.

He was the only emperor to demand that statues of him be seen without a sword in his hand -- he despised violence of all kinds.

A great philosopher but that does not make a great emperor. He was a good emperor but not equal of Trajan and Antoninus Pius his immediate predecessors.

Had a nutty son!!

Great Emperor, finished the war against the germans ( last battle is shown in the movie Gladiator), a thinker as said before, unfortunately his son Commodus was crazy indeed and bad. The last of thr so called time of the 5 good emperors. ( Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius )

Those dates should be (c. 69 - 79) rather than (c. 9 - 79)

Top 10 for sure. Top 5 seems a little high.

the republic (while technicaly oligarchy) was so corrupt and dysfunctional that it cuased many civil wars and that eld to dictators like sulla and julius ceaser dictators. Thanks to Augustus and his empire system rome entered a lang period of peace and prosperity kown as pax romania. How could you possible think that the roman republic a better form of government?

The increased stability and economic gains of his reign should speak for themselves. But he's only a good ruler by the standards of the principate. The republic was a better form of government anyway, since there was little need for military coups.

Good emperor but not one of the very best.

Paid for his own history(cough!) PR.

I agree completely. Vespasian also promoted the keeping of histories by offering financial reward to writers. If anything, he should be higher.

All Roman emperors claimed god status,not just Augustus

Augustus was a brilliant leader and politician, as he was able to create an military autocracy while giving the people the illusion that it was still a republic. He used propoganda (e.g. the Res Gestae, claimed bloodline to the gods) to convince people of his great deeds to the people. His rule was quite successful and the people mostly supported him, but he was a master manipulator.

He was brilliant in most ways, I'm studying Ancient History and the below comments saying he was a "dictator" is wrong. He refused dictatorship several times and infact there are no contemporary sources at the time that even called him "emperor." Only sources from after his time did and its hard to trust them because they are anachronistic. Nevertheless IF HE WAS, he brought stability to Rome, by restoring temples and increasing Romes wealth and may have been very popular with the roman people (subject to reliability of sources)

He got the balance right with the senators and with the Imperial Cult.

Honestly, Augustus had the ability to change the records of him. Any journals or letters from the time that express any political opinion give a sense of ambivalence toward Augustus.

I rank him 3rd on my list of leaders with the greatest achievements. !st is a tie between Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan.

It was the Pax Romana not Pax Augustus

No reason he should be top just because he was first and longest. He was no Trajan or Diocletian.

While he was certainly clever and established the empire, why is that a good thing? 1.) His new system took away power from the people, 2.) His system ensured a cyclical series of civil wars roughly every hundred years until the empire's demise, 3.) He killed numerous innocent families for both political reasons and to seize their money. He isn't hardly the #1.

They were Roman Emperors they all had people killed and murdered. Just what makes Augustus an animal as opposed to say Caligula or Nero?

He wasnt a dictator, the people of Rome were going to burn down the senate if they didnt vote for him to be made dictator, but he refused.

He was a great ruler and from the statues I've seen of him He was kinda cute ( for a dead guy and a staue)

He wans't a "dictator" if he ruled from the senate.

Great administrator poor general. Others fought for him while stayed safe. As a military leader he fares badly compared to Caesar, Trajan or Constantine.

Simply the best (better than all the rest, LOL).

he ruled for 49 years and 4 days which is possibly the longest reign EVER

He was one of the cleverest as well

He was good!

To this day we are dealing with the products of his actions, Israel-Palestine, England-Scotland, Romania, etc. He left a legacy of stability for the empire by setting up Antoninus Pius followed by Marcus Aurelius as his successors. Top 5 in my book.

An extremely talented individual; not only a genuine polymath but a competent soldier and pragmatic administrator. Spent much of his reign touring the empire attending to the provinces. Undertook much building, including the arguable apogee of Roman architecture: the Pantheon in Rome. Bar Kokhba revolt and its repercussions more complex than presented by some. Certainly deserving of the top 10 if not top 5.

No way , this guy was never fully trusted by trajan, and spent his rule increasing fear and building stupid edifices

Nope. He did some really insane things like single-handedly starting a war with the Jews by passing restrictive laws and desecrating their temple. The war was long and painful, and cost Rome at least two entire legions.

thanks for this l v

good wall

As far as he and the rest of the eastern roman empire saw it, he was a roman emperor. It's just that he never ruled from rome. But, if you check your history books, he did reconquer rome from the ostrogoths.

Almost succeeded in resurrecting the undivided empire, but failed due to a plague epidemic. Should be much higher.

Great leader. Not a Roman Emperor, to say that he was is like saying George Washington was one do the great British PMs.

Perhaps his only lasting accomplishment was his codex of Roman law. The long term effects of his "recovery" of lost territory, especially Itayl, was in the long run ruinously expensive and was a major factor in weakening the Eastern Roman Empire and aided in the loss of Syria, Palestine and Egypt to the Arabs in the 630s/40s.

hey wow no date NEED IT!!!

Byzantium , aka Byzantine Empire is the modern name for the eastern roman empire, was very sucesfull like 300 years after the fall of Rome, and could withstand despite many invasions, treason of Republic of Venice and Rise of Islam, until without help from othwe catholic nations collapsed in 1453, unfortunatelly in my opinion, i would like to visit the sucessor of the roman empire. ( stupid people say USA, does not make sense at all)

Titus in the top 10....not sure if he needs to be in it but can't be dropped too much longer. Top 20 for sure, probably top 15. Great charm, charisma and did a solid job in his tenure.....but it was only two years. Reminds me of JFK--one of the great "what ifs" of political leadership.

should be in top 10. found the roman empire in good shape and made it even better

A very unfortunate guy, his reign was actually only from 79-81. And during that time he dealt with the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and a large fire in Rome very effectively.

Great dude

A brilliant man, he certainly did the right move of moving the capital, for over thousands of years Byzantine stood as the richest and most powerful Empire in the world. Though I think the converting to Christianity was really good, I don't think that the rule of "if you come to this church you can continue to commemorate other religions" for example Celtic in Ireland many went to this church but continued to kill people in Stone henge a sacrifice to their gods

the importance of Rome as a capital had been taken over by other cities. None of the Emperors resided there anymore. Constantine did what Julius Caesar had planned centuries earlier.

Really!!?!?!?! He Put Rome in Peril by moving the Capital of the Empire

The Greatest Roman Emperor, superb general, clever statesman, just ruler and if necessary ruthless that is stuff which makes Great rulers

It's not about converting them to Christians it's about showing them love!

Called "the Great" by the senate for his military achievements not by Christian scholars. He was ruthless to those who betrayed and to survive a Roman Emperor had to be ruthless!!!!

Very average Emperor, utterly rutheless to friends and enemies alike but a world class opportunist. Made 'the Great' only by later Christian scholars.

good emperor , horrible person. killed his own sisters family

Constantine the Great and that says all

The greatest Emperor !

Constantine THE GREAT and he was really great. With Caesar he was the greatest general in Roman history!!!!!!!!

Constatine was a great emperor and should be placed higher. He made Christianity legal and that then led to the major change of Western Civilization.

He was a great emperor and should be much higher

Crazy!!!!!!!!!!

Constantine was born in 272, and his reign was 306-337.

A severely underated emperor, Septimus severus was the last good emperor who subdued germanic and african tribes for over a hundred years, conquered all of mesopotamia and made the farthest forays into England conquering almost the entire island save for the absolute northernmost tip up to Caledonia. Under his reign, rome was the largest it would ever be. Severus also rejuvanted the weakening legions through reforms but at the same time was one of the only emperors to discharge and reduce the praetorian guard. He increased the value of roman currency which was in a depression due to the horrible fiscal policies of Commodus by increasing the gold silver/content as well as the increase of gold/silver looted from his campaign in mesopotamia, Severus once again made the Roman economy vibrant. Severus was also one of the great factors in the decline of parthia as parthia would never again recover from the conquest of Severus and in doing so secured the eastern front for the rest of the severan dynasty. Severus was also one of the few emperors to have a stable and happy marriage as well as an agreeable social life with the plebs with whom he was very popular. Being a man of spartan tastes, Severus preferred the company of plebs and soldiers to that of the rich aristocracy, which did make Severus on unagreeable terms with the senate. Despite this, Severus made Rome great once again until the death of Alexander Severus which marked the beginning of the crisis of the 3rd century

An unlucky fellow who did good for his empire!

Because the discussion is about them being great Emperors and leaders and not good husbands you big dummy!

kept the Germans out

great emperor and nice person he's not killed his mother and wife

Umm.. He killed many,many people including his mother and wife!! how is that good?

Probably a little overrated due to Robert Graves and Dereck Jacobi but not a bad emperor and, at times, a good one. Mid teens is about right.

Wish we had his study of the Etruscan language today!!!

Claudius surprised everyone by being a decent leader, despite assumptions that he was an idiot. His reign stabilized the Roman world after the short reign of the emperor Caligula. He incorporated Britain into the Empire, was interested in the arts and sciences, and ruled fairly. His one big fault: Nero was his successor.

A great emperor who tried to purge the top heavy Roman bureaucracy of the Empire. Tried to create a permanent tolerance for all religions that couldn't realistically be revoked by a successor. All his actions on religion were mainly to limit the demise of many of the religions of his day. He banned the use of the then holy texts of the Illiad, Odessy, and Aenaid for Christian indocrinization, tried to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, and reversed the exile of all the dissident Christian priests and bishops. Never once did he begin a mass persecution of Christians. As he belived, men must be won over by reason, not force.

Brave Man, it is pity that he got so little time, that didn't realise his plans.

I read an interesting book called Julian the Apostate by Adrian Murdoch, and I thought it was fantastic. Julian was a very interesting man.

His victory at arentoratum- heroism, bad luck that he died when he did, who knows how much he could of done. Great philosopher

Julian did not reduce his powers and gave the senate no power. He was a dreamer who believed he was Alexander the Great, He was just lucky that his cousin died en route to kick his ass. However the dreamer died stupidly trying to be Alexander, He was not tolerant on religious matters

In a time of great religious turmoil, Julian attempted to increase the tolerance of all the religious sects: pagans, cults, Christians, etc. He also was one of the few emperors to attempt to drastically reduce his own power, giving much of it back to the senate and the people.

Nerva was not a larger-than-life figure like the greatest emperors, but he was aware of his shortcomings and made smart, pragmatic decisions that kept his rule secure as well as strengthening the empire. Most importantly, he picked the right successor and paved the way for the height of Rome's greatness.

In all honesty Tiberius is exemplary of the notion of decent rule. While there certainly were personal faults in his character and near the end of his reign laziness, his percieved cruelty was solely on the nobility and for the people (whom never loved Tiberius) his reign made Rome prosper. He ranks in the middle of the Julio-Claudian dynasty as lacking in greatness of military triumphs (Julius and Claudius) or infrastructure reforms (Augustus) but nor did he have as great a madness and savagery as his successors Caligula and Nero.

At the time he ruled, the Republic was still fresh in the senate's mind, so I think that he suffered a lot of character defamation. The fact was that he left surpluses, and was probably much better ruler than history gives him credit for. Besides imagine what it must have been to follow the footsteps of Augustus. He didn't have the benefit of a long lengthy history of the emperor's that some other emperor's had; so he had to learn from his own mistakes. So the only other guy that had done the job before him was dead, and it wasn't like Augustus wanted to make Tiberius his heir but destiny forced him to. So Tiberius was never as dutifully trained as say Titus, Hadrian, or Marcus Aurelius.

he didn't rule. That's why.

he was a better emperor than people give him credit for.

History paints a bad reputation for Tiberius because of the treason trials but in reality only 50 people where accused of treason and over half where pardoned. In the end, the Roman Empire was well managed under Tiberius with large surpluses in the Treasury.

Hard to look at judge him due to the religious and familial issues but....not an incompetent ruler by any means. While not as gifted as many of the emperors, he did a solid job for more than two decades.

It's probably not true, what do you think. I think that Constantius II did not win the battle with Julian, maybe Julian or even his own soldiers kicks the Constantius christian ass!!! :)

If he lived the Empire would have had no Julian, unfortuantely for the Romans, Constantius died before he could kick Julian's ass

The most of human member of the Tetrarchy. A much loved and respected emperor by his subjects.

The senate loved him because he was a puppet in their hands, his mother ruled behind the scenes.

The Senate Loved him very much. In that time it wasn't very common. He has a wise rule, but he restored and helpes the empire a lot, but his sucessors only made several mistakes.

It's easy to forget Lucius Verus since his star simply gets eclipsed when compared to Marcus Aurelius. Not an incompetent ruler by any means though probably does not need to break the top 15 either.

Verus is very Underrated

Caracalla is one of the worst rome emperors. He thought that he is new Alexander The Great not Iulianus, but whole his military focuses was catastrophy.

Caracalla was a total psychopath. He was nowhere a good emperor. The only thing of worth he left were the astounding baths in Rome.

If Galerius was monster, that later christians emperors were monsters too, they all discriminated peoples of pagan religions and many of them were killed too. Christianity was mighty monster mafia-like organisation. All the history of christianity is written by blood and lust for might and money. How would Christ like that all? Shame on christians!!!!

A monster who caused horrible sufferings to thousands just because of religion.

He was pretty good!!

Very Famous and Succesful General ruled in very difficult age.

Conqueror of the Goths ....should be higher

Partied harder than any other emperor. Only appears on Worst lists thanks to puritans like Gibbon.

His craziness and cruelty are over rated. Plus he established the cult of Sol Invictus, was nice to Christians, and built the largest temple in Rome. Not a great emperor, in all probability a mad emperor, but realise he's not the worst emperor.

The glutton - crazy with his food!

Probably the last great western emperor (after Valentinian I only Theodosius I was important but made some mistakes, Constantius III could be great, but ruled only few months and Aetius was really great person and one of those so called "the last Romans", but never ruled like emperor.

Why the hell is he even near the top 30's? He along with Elagabalus were the worst emperors ever!

When he rebuilt the city after the fire, one third of the land that was destroyed turned into his own large palace.

He also rebuilt much of the city after the great fire, negotiated peace with Parthia until Trajan broke the treaty and invaded Parthia. And acted in plays,sang, and did poetry for the people. there was a few bad thing's. at the time the Christians weren't to well liked anyway's except by fellow Christians. Id say he would be in the top 15.

Nero burned Christians to light his dinner parties. Not a nice guy at all!!!

He killed his own mother and wife!! How the HELL do you call that good?

Most of the people on this list didn't survive for two years on the throne. Nero ruled over a decade. The bar isn't exactly very high here! duh!!!!

he championed the silent minority, hail ceaser

His first name isn't Gaius romans dropped there first name and made their middle name their first name when they became an adult. another thing he was never an empore he was just dictator for life

he was the best !!!, not the 32nd!!!!!!!!!!

The best military leader and he had no choice but to overide the Senate to strenghen Rome. The people were galvanized after his Gallic campaigns but the senate's memory of Sulla was too fresh to let Caesar rule. Why he's tragic

Julius Caesar saved Rome. He help start Rome change into an Empire. this in turn basically gave Rome a chance to regroup and restart. Julius Caesar should be in the top 20.

If you include ceasar because he was dictator then Sulla must also be included.

The Roman Republic was a failure to the needs out of the majorities. The rich patricians were the only ones with access to power, the people depended on the charity of the wealthy. The republic was a noble idea corrupted by the greed of men. Julius Caesar did what had to be done. We look at the Roman republic through our current understanding of a republic.

Do your research! Julius Caesar did not destroy the Roman Republic! The empire was already crumbling long before he was even born. Some say it was the Punic wars that started the ball rolling, and some say it was the reform brought about by the Gracchi brothers. The republic would have collapsed regardless of Julius' reign.

not even an emperor on wikipedia it is writen "Dictator Of the Roman Republic"

wasn't even an emperor

Never emperor. Doesn't belong on list. Doesn't matter how good a ruler he was.

He loved the people -- gave money and land to the poor. he was a people's ruler.

He was declared dictator for life so that would be an emperor by most definitions.

He was never an emperor. The title emperor came after he was dead.

he wasn't an emperor so why da heck is he here

because he never became emperor in the 1st place because he got assinated by the senate

y isnt there a time period when he ruled??????

Got what he deserved!! Egotistical, brutal, self seeking and cynical man!! Destroyer of the Roman Republic, leading to all the mad emperors!!!

too bad he wasn't an emperor

he was the greatest roman of all time

Nowhere near as bad as is popularly thought. Yes, he was fat. Yes, he was a glutton. I think a lot of his political enemies who wrote histories--looking at you Suetonius--trash the man a bit too much.

Poor Geta. Got murdered before he stood a chance.

Gallienus must be much more higher. He lived in very complicated era of Rome Empire, had many rivals inside Roman Empire. He did some victories over barbarians even and try to reform army. He stopped killing Christians too. Read about him in Wikipedia!!!

Every reason to expect he would have been a good emperor if not cut short by the greed of the praetorians. He was in the process of reforming the excesses of the system, including the rampant corruption among the praetorians. It got him killed.

Bad year of ruling - 193 is right not 93!

Pertinax was a very famous man - senator, before he was voted caesar. He ruled three month only, but if he could rule longer, he might has been very good emperor perhaps. Read about him in Wikipedia!!!

Was a courteous and just ruler and tried to restore Rome back to its former stability after the tyranny of Commodus.

Not a great emperor or even a good one but his death was the right thing to do.

A career soldier with no concept of civic institutions and pretty much zero ability to govern anything outside of a military camp. His solution to most problems was force of arms and he failed even in his strong suit, getting bogged down in a useless siege and getting killed by his own men. He helped create a horrible period of civil war and instability. Absolutely one of the worst emperors of all time.

Why is Maximinus not at the bottom of the list? He essentially began the Crisis of the Third Century....

Galba was extremely strict and would not compromise with anybody. This ultimately lead to his downfall. He is said to have been "the best emperor ever, if he wasn't emperor."

Extremely overrated. Incompetent and a tyrant who is whitewashed by modern historians who find virtue in his rule.

One of the worst emperors

Best name of any emperor. Ever.

Ruled 238-244

Yes, You are right, i forgot to west part of roman empire. Majorianus was one of the last west roman emperors named to throne by Ricimer. Sorry abut my previous comment!!!

Majorianus was emperor? After weak Theodosius II (408-450) ruled 450-457 Marcianus and after him Leo I 457-474. Marcianus and Anastasius I (491-518) were two of the best early byzantine (pre Justinianus) emperors.

Actually bought the title of emperor in an auction from the praetorian guard after they murdered Pertinax for threatening their gravy train. He barely ruled for a month before he was crushed by Septimius Severus and the praetorians, having got their money, abandoned him to his fate. Pathetic and absolutely one of the worst emperors, setting some seriously damaging precedents in his short attempt at rule.

Bad year - 193 is right not 93!

Generally despised as a tyrant and for going after Christians but a seriously underrated emperor.

He was a tyrant and unpopular, but he was effective and ruled the empire well.

C'mon guys, this guy laid the foundation for the pax romana! He fortified lines of defence in across the rhine,fought succesful border wars, reacted with capable speed, created a stronger currency and was very loved with the military and most of the people, his stupid wife conspired against him to take his life.

The Theme System he organized after the fall of the ERE's provinces to the Arabs would go on to strengthen the defence of Asia Minor until the dissaster at Manzikert in 1079, over 400 years later. I've always wondered what would have happened to the Roman Empire's continuation in the east if the last Roman-Sassanid War had occured a few decades before it actually did.

Would have been remembered as the greatest Roman General since Caesar or Trajan if he didn't have the bad luck of those Arab Invasions 2 years after his greatest accpmplishment.

Oversaw the Komnenian Restoration when the Turks were about to sweep the remnants of the Roman Empire awat in the 1000s-1100s.

While Sulla was never an Emperor he was one of the most important Dictators and was a rare example of fufilling pledges that his dictatorial powers were temporary. Ended civil war and attempted great constitutional reform but in retirement was assassinated.

he was a really good emperor before he got sick and became insane

A horse for a senate EPIC

is this for real? he made a donkey a member of senate.... INSANE.

Totally immoral.

mad as hell maybe played too much chess

Blame Julius Caesar !!!

Thought he was the incarnation of Heracles, randomly killed members of the Senate, participated in Gladiatorial games (gladiators-- despite what we may think-- were either slaves or political prisoners and were not viewed as respectable or heroic), and most importantly drained Rome of its funds and allowed the Praetorian Guards to become unruly. If anything, he was the instigator for the gradual decline of the Empire after the Five Good Emperors.

How the hell do you end up with a harem of 2000?