Greatest Roman Emperors

After Trajan, the Romans would say of a new Emperor, "Felicio Augusto, melior Traiano," or, "May he be more fortunate than Augustus and better than Trajan."

This man KNEW how to lead! He was rather fiscally responsible (though the influx of Gold from his conquests as emperor) certainly helped. His refusal to micromanage the Governors of the provinces (only dealing with the big issues, and telling them to figure out the small ones by themselves) His restraint at times

trajan good

trajan pretty good emperor

Rome reached its greatest extent under him.

Trajan was called Optimus Princeps (best leader) by his contemporaries for a reason. That legacy continued on even after the collapse of the Empire. If the people of the time period were calling him the Best Emperor, then its safe to say he was the best emperor.

He overused resources to conquer more land, that is why Rome lost its conquered lands.

he was one of the best Emperors but not number 1 for many reasons.

Trajan was a wildley popular emperor . Trajan made very visible contributions, expanding the Empire's geographical, geopolitical and good will to the farthest reaches of the empire. Trajan held his peoples attention and he gained their trust. Trajan' s r influence over his successors issued in the Glory years of the Roman Republic.

he was good but not number 1

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"

Aurelian is in my top 5. At first glance, his hardcore, serious demeanor makes him seem a little like Galba is totally offset by his being fully in control, winning epic victories, getting the acclaim of the people and soldiers, and knowing when to show clemency. He did exacerbate inflation (with making more mints) but it seems that no one really knew how to deal with it back then. He did revalue the coinage positively, and was wise in building walls. Truly worthy as one of the best and the restorer of the empire. Sad he was tragically killed when he had so much life left to live.

There's a reason the Senate proclaimed him "Invictus Restitutor Orbis" or "The Unconquered Restorer of the World."

Dealt a weak hand, but played it well. Importantly, it wasn't just military victory, a lot of his success was through politics as well. A few more years and the empire may have permanently stabilised.

A capable and at times even great emperor, Aurelian stitched the splintering empire back together at the height of the crisis of the third century. An able general and brilliant politician, he is rightly credited with being one of Rome's greatest emperors. If there are any potential black marks upon his record, one could point to his disastrous attempt at fiscal reform. Its detrimental effect upon the economy was still being felt at the beginning of Diocletian's reign. He was also notable for paving the way for monotheism (eventually to take the form of Christianity) in the Roman Empire by establishing the cult of Sol Invictus.

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.

He knew how to milk the system, govern wisely, and lead well fiscally, militarily, politically, etc. The standard for sure (next to Trajan).

Octavian was the greatest of them all. Think about it. His father died when he was young. His mum married another and didn't give a moments thought about him. Raised by Julia,the sister of Julius Caesar. After being wrecked and swimming ashore he traverses hostile territory to reach Caesar's camp. After spending time with the great Julius Caesar, the same changed his will in Octavian's favour. Shortchanged by Anthony he shrewdly gained the loyalty of Caesar's veterans and by incremental steps from a disadvantaged position gained supremacy of the Mediterranean world! Not only was he lucky he was incredibly smart and basically forged an empire that lasted 400 years in the west and 1500 years in the East all the while finding a solution to the aversion to kings by creating the Principate!what he lacked as a military man he more than made up for as a political genius! Less charismatic than uncle Julius but Definately #1 by a long distance!

Augustus had a lot of experience. He knew what he was doing.

Not a genius military leader, but he had his friend Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa to take care of that. And he was a great politician. He was mostly underrated and being overshadowed of Gaius Julius Caesar (the dictator), but that did not stop him from defeating the soap opera couple Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra VII. And he ruled the longest reign. Pax Romana!

Militarily most of his achievements should b ecredited to Agrippa which puts him no higher than 3 - 5.

I believe that Augustus was the greatest, but Trajan,Aurelian, Titus,Julian the Apostate and some other were great as well....

The greatest Roman Emperor. Nuff said

Augustus should be 1# or 2# because he was given the title Augustus doesn't it mean great

It is not clear if he was really greatest emperor. He lived in relative peacefully times for Rome. Rome have not so strong rival in the early years of principate. But how great Augustus were living for example in the third century in very difficult era of Rome? The strongest emperors are for me these like Valerianus, Gallienus, Claudius Gothicus, Aurelianus and Probus. Tragic persons lost their lifes for greatness of Rome, when to be an emperor was over humen power. In opposite of latest christianity emperors. Christianity destroy classic feelings of emperors and their need to live for Rome.

i wonder why augustus didn't make it as number one emperor of rome... he is far greater than any of the roman emperors... no other emperor had achieved more than he did,he is just the best of them all... he wasn't a military genius,but he is a very genius politician.and his genius in politics is what gave rome its pax romana... putting him on lower than top 3 is an insult to his greatness...

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!

My favorite emperor (next to Claudius, Domitian-yes, I know-and Hadrian), though Augustus and Trajan were very savvy, smart, and good Pius was fiscally responsible with the treasury (a huge help to the roman economy and imperium) Personally footed the bill for relief and rebuild efforts Gave slaves more rights Showed good military restraint Was a humble man, who earnestly took time to think about whether or not he should take such a big and powerful office.

It's a shame we don't know much about his reign, because what we do have just says "Good sailor on a calm sea" to me. Not an incompetent ruler, but I wonder how he'd handle some real crisis.

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

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.

Truly a sincere and Noble man who erred with Commodus, but there's no doubt that even Commodus set out to reign fairly, but went crazy after his sister tried to kill him. Marcus was decent in his governance and war-making, but probably needed a firmer background in military affairs, though he did fairly well beating back the Marcomanni.

He had a lot more on his plate than the previous four good emperors had to deal with, but proved himself equal to the task. A weaker emperor at this time, and you start talking about the Crisis of the Second Century. The succession of Commodus is a big black mark however.

Marcus Aurelius often faces criticism for the barbarian invasions and plague that took place during his reign, as well as his poor choice of successor. Simply put, a lesser man would have crumbled under the weight of the first two, which were in no way his fault. In fact, at the time of his death, Rome had turned the tide against the invaders and it is reasonable to expect that a conclusive victory would have followed had the next emperor not been a complete incompetent. With regards to the succession of Commodus, Marcus Aurelius deserves some of the blame, as virtually ANYONE would have made a better Emperor. However, it is important to note that Commodus was not his first or even second choice of successor. Also, Rome at that point had developed a highly successful system of collaborative rule that everybody believed would survive Commodus and render his acknowledged stupidity largely irrelevant to the day-to-day reality of governing. Subsequent events, of course, were to prove them wrong.

NUMBER 6 SHOULD BE PROBUS

he wasn't a good emperor he fought the barbarian tribes and the parthians he let the barbarians run amok in the western empire,while he was dealing with the parthins most of his reigb he shared with another person (lucius verus and commodus) he also chose commodus as his sucessor, a horrible choice he was a good emperor, but not as high as he is

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 )

An able, mostly honourable and properly restrained emperor Fairly fiscally responsible Showed just the right amount of force and restraint with the Senate (not too harsh; not too soft) Good and liked by the people Stable emperor and leader Smart militarily Raised a great son and successor in Titus (but neglected Domitian) WAs going to show mercy and grace to Vitellius, but the praetorians wouldn't let him surrender; once Vespasian's brother was killed by Vitellius' rogue, rebellious forces, all bets were off.

Should be in the top three. The first Italian, as opposed to Roman, to be Emperor. Also he is the most human and the most likable of all the Emperors. Not his fault that his son and successor Titus died so young.

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.

Persecuted mass hordes of Christians and other faiths at the time.

Diocletian was the saviour of the Romans, if he had not stepped in the Empire would have fallen long before he did. Besides, the Great Persecution was largely ignored by most, and it was mostly Galerius anyway.

The Tetrarchy may have been a temporary solution to the need for the Emperor to be everywhere at the same time but it soon fell into chaos once Diocletian abdicated. It took Constantine I to reunite the empire.

In spite of his considerable achievements, Diocletian claims that his cabbage farm was one of the greatest. They must have been some amazing cabbages.

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.

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.

hadrian was a great ruler some of you are saying his wal was useless-however, england wasnt reconquered until the fall of the western empirecin 476 he was also a smart person and stupid eddificiers people go to rome to see the pantheon-he mustve done someyhng right pn the religious stiff-all of the emperors until constantine believed roman paganism to be the true religion so t they did meadures to stor christanity besodes, o if the jews didnt wan thejr temple destroyed why did the revolt? top 5

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.

thanks for this l v

good wall

Despite his flaws (come on, all people have flaws, even Augustus), he was one of the last great Roman Emperors, with later examples including Basil I and II, Alexios I Komnenos, and Michael Palaiologos and his descendant Konstantinos XI Palaiologos Dragases. The fact that people don't recognise the fact that they are Roman Emperors shows how much H. Wolf, that evilly biased historian in Germany, has affected everyone who looks at the Roman Empire in the Medieval Era.

After the Nika Revolt that left much of Constantinople in ruins, Justinian built the Hagia Sophia, the most magnificent church in Christendom for a thousand years, until its conversion into a Mosque by the Ottomans. This was built in around six years. By contrast, many magnificent Western Cathedrals took decades or centuries to build. However Justinian built so fast, the concrete hadn't set properly, and its original dome collapsed after forty years. In this, we see a good metaphor for Justinian's reign. Any one of his internal reforms, the reclaimation of North Africa, or the restoration of Rome to the Empire would be an achievement worthy of a single man. Doing them all is nothing short of spectacular. However it was done so fast that it couldn't be sustained, and much of Italy was lost after his death. He was a Trajan who didn't have a Hadrian succeed him, determined to properly evaluate what was actually worth keeping. A great man with a mixed record.

Theoderic the Great was working more as a Practician of Rome than a barbarian overlord. If Justinian allowed the Western provinces to continue on their own, the was a good chance that Africa, Spain, and Italy would reunited on back to the empire on their own.

According to author "James J. O'Donnell," both wars against the West and East were totally unnecessary, and had disastrous consequences that permanently destroyed any hope of Rome's recovery. Justinian did more harm than good.

Justinian was a great emperor. Besides the laws, he also expanded the Byzantine Empire. Under his brilliant general Belisarus, he added North Africa,Italy , and Southern Spain to the empire(Belisarius conquered North africa in 538 and helped conquer Italy. Belisarus also dealt with the ever present threat of persia. What mmakes belisrus achievement more amazing is he wasnever trusted fully by justinian and his wife, theadora, and never lead a large army. With their support, he might have reincarnated the roman empire. Justinian also had to deal with 2 devastatibg plagues and a rebellion in Constaintinople, which belisarus smashed. Along with his strong wille wife, justinian rose from a macedonian peaseant to the greatest leader on earth for 40 years.

The only thing that could qualifiy Justinian for this list was his codification of laws. While a mile-stone and an important accomplishment, it was his only unambiguous triumph. His obsession with monument building and expanding the imperial frontiers through conquest nearly destroyed the empire and took generations to recover from.

He was as Roman as they came. The last true grand emperor. Big ideas big building s and the last to try to restore the entire empire. May has succeeded if not for the extraordinary events of 535 and the following plague. He also overhauled the laws inventing in a way common law. How Roman is that

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.

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)

Mixed, though a successful, strong and capable emperor. His creation of the Solidus (gold coin) ended the rampant inflation in the economy from the crisis years, but should've found a way to revalue the silver coinage, or some stable currency for the poor. Erred in executing Crispus. Kept the empire mostly safe, but broke the Tetrarchy, even though it's possible it may not have lasted forever.

Constantine is probably the reason why the Western Empire lived for another 100 years. If he hadn’t been emperor the Empire would’ve been split into 4, not 2.

In terms of making the Empire stronger, his record is somewhat mixed. If Diocletian's succession plans after his abdication left Civil War likely, Constantine's all but guaranteed it. His economic reforms had long term implications that led to medieval feudalism. However his general influence on world history, beyond the scope of Rome, cannot be denied. And Constantinople remained a significant city for centuries, regardless of whether you think the Medieval Empire can claim to be Roman or not.

Overrated. He had some deeds on uniting the empire, only to be divided again soon. He made the classical religions of Jupiter, Mars, Apollo vanish from a greater part of the empire, made a monotheism that would soon make enemies of all the other polytheisms just by making them demons.

Vastly over-rated, caused the fall of the western empire by moving the capital

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.

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!!!!

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

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

It is a great shame that Titus did not last longer than he did. His humanitarian efforts in dealing with the Vesuvius disaster earned him widespread praise, and he showed every sign of equaling or potentially surpassing his father Vespasian's achievements.

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.

despite his lack of experience, Claudius proved to be an efficient administrator. Under his reign, the empire underwent it's first major expansion since the reign of Augustus. He also build many new roads, aqueducts, and many more.. He also built the Ostia port, so he could import the wheat from Egypt. Beside the wheat he also imported corn, so he could alleviate the starvation (because under his reign, like what Agabus said, there was a big starvation).

Was a historian and it would have been nice if his histories had survived. A pity Agrapinna suppressed his will and made Nero emperor

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 capable emperor and commander who ruled during a time of endemic instability and collapse, Probus tried to stem the bleeding with military campaigns, infrastructure renewal, and resettlement efforts. Had he ruled for longer, his pragmatic yet impressive efforts might have just succeeded. A practical man who always tried to keep his soldiers busy when they were not campaigning, Probus attempted to rebuild the devastated provinces by draining fields, building and rebuilding civic and private structures, and resettling Germanic tribes in depopulated areas. Unfortunately, he was not a particularly astute politician and was unloved by his troops because of the heavy workload he saddled them with. Probus was assassinated in 282 AD.

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

the greatest roman emperor of all time. A super competent leader and an authority to be both respected and fearful of. under his reign the roman empire reached its greatest extent. he was a man of remarkable wisdom and talent, a ferocious tiger and a cunning fox at the same time, which are the qualities every successful ruler should possess. understood the importance of military and while strengthening it, used it effectively. also everybody should read machiavelli's take on him and his time as an emperor.

Really an awful emperor, probably did more to harm the empire than many that we commonly think of as the "worst of the worst". Severus was competent but his policies were catastrophic in ways that were predictable had he cared at all about the people of the empire who weren't currently members of the army. The fact that he was able to implement his policies should probably count against him in the final analysis. Let's look at his track record, he does very well for himself rising through the ranks and generally not getting killed by Commodus or the Antonine Plague which is impressive. Then he wages a savy and successful civil war after Commodus is assassinated, so far so good, could be another Vespasian. Then Severus becomes emperor and all the bad comes to the surface. He isn't interested in running the state and leaves it all to Plautianus who is incredibly corrupt. Severus as a ruler was first, last and only a military strong man, his vision for the empire didn't go past winning battles and giving prizes to the soldiers. This approach to governance which Severus introduced corrupted the army and turned it into the vicious parasite that would ensure the crisis of the third century. Then to top it off he left the empire to Caracalla (and Geta until Caracalla murdered him) whom Gibbon rightly called "the common enemy of mankind".

Septimius Severus reminds me a lot of Theodosius: Personally competent and stabilising, bequeathed to Rome a dynasty that was anything but stable (sorry Alexander), laid the seeds for future threats to the empire (generous donatives to the army undermining their discipline) and ended his reign with a costly military campaign. He improved Rome's lot, admittedly easy to do after Commodus, but not in a way that lasted for long.

Septimius Severus was a harsh but effective ruler who reestablished stability following the chaos after the fall of the Antonine Dynasty. While he did a lot of good for the empire, he also set some dangerous precedents. From Severus onward, the majority of emperors came to view military might as the only viable avenue for attaining and maintaining power.

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!

I think this is a fair ranking for TIberius (15.), because he left the empire stable (though there were some 20ish people killed during his reign in treason trials (50 some total trials we think), a huge treasury surplus (though no doubt some projects went undone that should've happened) and with no major foreign threats or issues. He honestly is just a sad case for how Augustus used him, making him divorce his first, beloved wife to marry Augustus' awful daughter. Definitely misunderstood, even if imperfect, but not bad at all in grand scheme of things.

Not bad was a little inexperienced due to being a last resort over Gaius, Lucius, and Marcellus

Forget Robert Greaves Tiberius as the second Emperor has a difficult job. THe Principate could have collapsed following the rule of Augustus but Tiberius was a competent administrator and one of Rome's greatest generals conquering much of the former Yugoslavia together with parts of Switzerland and Germany. 56 when he came to the purple Augustus would hardly have chose him above his grand nephew Germanicus if he doubted Tiberius's abilities.

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.

Constantius II had one basic goal: never lose an inch of the empire his family led. He was often far better at putting down civil wars than he was at dealing with other powers. Being emperor when he ruled was a thankless job with little respite. I don't think most historians would call Constantius a great emperor but he held the empire together for more than 20 years, even as he wiped out much of his family to secure the thrown. Easily deserves to be in the top half of emperors but top 10-12 seems above his reach.

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.

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

Very much in the mold of Aurelian, a man dealt a weak hand but played it effectively. Tragically undermined by the political instability though. If given free reign could have halted the decline for at least a few decades.

The last Western Emperor to actually take the job seriously, Majorian was a vigorous, capable ruler who very nearly succeeded in saving Rome during its twilight. A brilliant military commander, he reconquered most of western Europe. An able ruler, he passed anti-corruption laws and promoted religious tolerance, fiscal reform, senate accountability, and greater gender equality. His murder, at the hands of the kingmaker Ricimer, proved to be the penultimate nail in the coffin for Rome.

Although history has relegated him to footnote status, Majorian should be recognized as Rome's last true hero and one of history's great what-ifs. Originally brought to power in concert with the manipulations of the kingmaker Ricimer, Majorian was intended to be a puppet. It quickly became clear that he was much more, and the relatively young Western Emperor immediately instituted a series of vigorous reforms and brilliantly successful military campaigns. Rome had twice been sacked within the preceding decades, and the empire was crumbling everywhere the 'barbarians' touched it. Through conquest and treaty, Majorian restored the bulk of Western Europe to Roman rule, and was on his way to do so in Africa until treachery caused his fleet to burn at anchor. On the home front, he embarked upon an ambitious restoration of Rome’s former glory. He passed laws forbidding the demolition of historically important monuments, worked to curb the influence of the church on the state, attempted to increase the birthrate far more gently than Augustus had, ensured the legal enshrining of women's inheritance and succession rights, strengthened the economy and minted new coins, began rebuilding the military as a Roman institution as opposed to a semi-mercenary barbarian army, and tried to restore transparency and accountability to both the senate and civil service. This final effort was a step too far, as the senate had long since ceased to resemble a responsible body. Ricimer, worried that his puppet was no longer dancing to his tune, and the senate, worried that their gravy train was coming to an end, conspired to remove Majorian from power. While heading back to Italy from campaign, the emperor disbanded his army at the Rubicon. He was struck down by Ricimer’s mercenaries, tortured, and beheaded. With him disappeared Rome's last great hope.

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.

The beginning of Ceasar’s Reign is considered to be the end of the Roman Republic. Though he is not considered the first Emperor, that distinction falls to Octavian. Caesar was meerly Princeps (1st amping equals) which he ripped from Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus cold dead hands after The Great Magnus was murdered in Egypt.

Best Emperor! lol

Caesar often gets a bad rap for his role in bringing about the end of the Roman republic. However, this decadent and thoroughly corrupt body had already long-since ceased to be an effective form of representational government. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and the various Scipiones had, in effect, already killed the Republic. It just took everybody until the first triumvirate to figure this out. In reality, Caesar was a proud and ruthless egotist, but also personally brave, charismatic, and a vigorous reformer. Most importantly, he appears to have genuinely believed in the credo of the Populares, and his efforts on behalf of Rome's common people and veterans were truly impressive.

he's just damn amazing even better than alexander the great

this is dumb julius ceaser is way better then Nero

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??????

too bad he wasn't an emperor

he was the greatest roman of all time

His revaluing of Roman currency, political reforms (such as having friedmen allowed to have involvement), and the fact that he was actually an able, learned, and intelligent administrator. Way too harsh on the Senate (got him killed) but had the right idea about not giving them more credit or power than deserved).

Domitian should be somewhere between 10-15. First of all, he was around from age 18 through the entire length of his dynasty until the last day. Second, he avoided civil war and the empire expanded in Britain under Agricola. Thirdly, he provided stability for the empire but more importantly the Roman army; the proof of this is how both Trajan and Nerva were connected to him. I agree with other comments that he was not a nice guy, but there would be no 5 good emperors without him

Ruthless, brutal, and autocratic, but also efficient and effective, Domitian was loved by the common people and loathed by the senate and upper classes. As a result, he suffered significant character defamation in the years after his reign. However, his rule, while repressive and marked by religious and civil persecution, laid the foundations for the coming Pax Romana of the next century.

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.

Becoming Emperor at a time when Rome's enemies have you over a barrel doesn't often do wonders for your reputation. The narrative of his cowardice is wholly undeserved, he just accurately assessed that continuing the war wasn't worth it when it risked destruction of the East's ability to defend itself. He then spent his time trying to solidify the empire. I feel for him, but I'd say it's probably good he bowed out when he did, the reaction to his peace deal just begs for revolts and civil war, and with the mass migrations on the horizon that's the last thing Rome needed.

Jovian gets a bad rap for being forced to clean up the mess left by Julian's death. While he did not sign the best of treaties, he did escape with his army and had a peace pledge for 30 years. In his eight months wearing the purple, Jovian was able to balance between pagans and Christians. It's telling that, even though he never held court in Constantinople, Jovian did not face a rebellion from the West. It's also telling that there are many rumors about how he died--bad mushrooms to carbon dioxide--but few think he was murdered. Jovian had potential and, despite his short reign, he probably deserves to be in the middle of the pack of Roman emperors.

Often Lionized by classicists and those with an anti-Christian agenda, Julian was an eccentric and generally incapable leader whose military misadventures put Rome in serious danger. His brand of paganism has also been criticized for its fanatical and dogmatic overtones, and a large percentage of pagan intellectuals during his reign disliked Julian almost as much as his Christian subjects did.

Not a bad emperor I wonder what would have happened if that spear hadn't got him

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, like Antoninus Pius gets more credit than he deserves because of Gibbon's "five good emperors" line. He probably was selected because he was old and didn't have son. But in Nerva's case there was a clear job for him as emperor, keep the empire from falling into civil war in the aftermath of Domician's assassination and pick a good successor. He didn't do much else but he made it possible for Trajan to become emperor and well, see the top of this list.

A little overrated despite his good intentions. Nerva was forced to take Trajan as his successor since everyone was nervous that a sickly emperor in his mid 60s did not have a son. Nerva was also a poor administrator and bad with finances. Not a bad emperor by any means but nowhere near as good as is often thought.

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.

One of the true Romans, all for Rome. At the end of his life he canceled all his antichristianity laws and give christians freedom.

A good military commander who brought some stability to Rome during times of upheaval. However, he is best remembered for his brutal repression and persecution of Christianity, and the lengthy power struggle that he engaged in with his co-emperors and various attempted usurpers.

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.

Obviously not a great great emperor, but his reforms were ahead of their time. The way he reformed military leadership (by not letting inexperienced senators lead legions, instead letting experienced Equestrian commanders; reforming units into primarily cavalry units that could move quick across the map; and religious tolerance all contributed to a stabler and long-term stronger empire. For that, I say he should at least be up maybe 10 more slots. Not perfect, but did some good

Spent life trying to protect the Empire from its many enemies: The Gallic, Palmyrene, and Sassanid Empires. Succeeded in putting down many rebellions and usurpers. His luck ran out though when he was murdered. Would have loved to see more from him.

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!!!

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

Ruling from 238-244, Gordian III was only thirteen years of age at the start of his reign. Unfortunately, he is mainly remembered as a puppet of the senate and his father in law, Timesitheus (head of the praetorian guard). However, the youngest of the Gordians actually showed signs of growing into a very good ruler. Though not a military man, at the age of eighteen, he led his troops into battle against the encroaching Mesopotamians and crushed them at the battle of Resaena. Charismatic, literate, humble, and genuinely good-natured, he was greatly mourned by the Roman people and senate alike upon his mysterious and untimely passing.

Ruled 238-244

A largely forgotten emperor who ruled briefly during the year of four emperors, Vitellius was a well-intentioned man who would have made a decent rule during better times. Though best known for his gluttony, he should perhaps be better remembered for the small but important reforms to the army and the civil service that he pushed through during his short reign. No soldier by any stretch of the imagination, Vitellius was in the process of peacefully resigning his office in the face of a challenge from Vespasian when he was taken and executed without due process.

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.

Would have done well in peace times but was unfit for the job of beating the sassanids. Whether it was personal cowardice or a complete lack of awareness of what the soldiers in his army wanted and expected of him that caused him to mismanage the war efforts is unclear. Either of them would be enough to downgrade him from a good emperor to one who was at best mediocre.

Was wise and patient for his age, but did not have the force of personality necessary to reign in the army after 40 years of being pandered to, which was the exact cause of his downfall. Also while resorting to diplomacy first is good, didn't really have a good sense of when it's time to shift to arms.

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.

He didn't have the personal virtues to be a great emperor, but he at least knew to let competent folk do the job for him.

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

Pretty underrated but successful! Won some epic victories at a time when rome seemed doomed. Sad he was lost to the plague on 1.5 yrs into his reign. WOuld've been cool to see what he'd have done

Very Famous and Succesful General ruled in very difficult age.

Conqueror of the Goths ....should be higher

Was very good at putting out fires, but his high handed and uncompromising manner started quite a few fires that he then had to put out. A good man to handle a crisis, but needed a more diplomatic attitude when there wasn't a crisis.

Known as the 'last great western emperor,' Valentinian I was a man of many contradictions. A fierce, bold, and terribly temperamental ruler, he did his best to hold the decaying empire together during its waning days. Marked by his hatred of wealth, the wealthy, and of sophistication in general, Valentinian, at times, could be brutal and repressive. Though seeing himself as a common soldier, the emperor was often rude and high-handed towards those he met with and a poor judge of ability in his administrators. Conversely, he was also noted for his efforts on behalf of the poor and common citizens of the empire, his encouragement and funding for advances in medicine, and his promotion of religious freedom and tolerance. Throughout his reign, Valentinian was a man under a great deal of duress, often exacerbated by his fiery nature. He died of a stroke in 375 AD in modern-day Germany after flying into a rage over what he perceived as rudeness by visiting diplomats from the Quadi tribe.

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.

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

Revalued currency to curb inflation/right the economy left by Commodus; made smart efforts to reform the praetorians, but should've went in better defended, or at least placated them or found a way to wipe them out to stop their tyranny and control on the empire's affairs. Good emperor, gone too soon. Had he reigned for years, the empire would've flourished.

Pertinax, who actually ruled during the year 193 (the headliner is incorrect), was a former senator and a very highly placed man within the Roman political sphere. Originally a compromise candidate (his advanced age helped as well), he proved to be a harsh and unpopular disciplinarian intent on reforming the senate and machinery of government. Predictably, this got him assassinated.

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.

Was certainly competent, and kept control of his domain well. His failure was letting his army grow to hate him by his favoring of a foreign guard. Should not be seen as a bad emperor, but decent instead.

He was pretty good!!

A capable and successful emperor, given all he did in his VERY short reign! Won good victories, and named his mature (20s? 30s?) Son's as Caesars to share in the burden of empire, and help establish a stable dynasty. Obviously died very early, but would've likely been a stable, competent emperor (based on his decisions). His son Carinus was both strong & competent, and he probably was mis-characterized by Diocletian after Diocletian (likely got him murdered) became sole emperor. Numerian was a smart, and poetic man who would've made a decent administrator to pair with Carinus.

A well-regarded military emperor and top-notch commander who ruled briefly during the late third century, Carus suffered the unique misfortune of being struck and killed by lightning while in his tent on campaign against the Sassanids. At the time, he was enjoying great success and was generally held in high esteem, making his death that much more tragic and assassination rather unlikely. He was succeeded by his sons Carinus and Numerian, granting Rome a brief reprieve and stability during a tumultuous period.

He didn't rule for long, and didn't do much we remember in that time. His younger brothers ran circles around him in jockeying for position, and he died in an attempt to force his will on them.

His preparing the defense of Italy against Maximinus Thrax's invasion helped successfully deter the invasion, and bring the awful Maximinus' reign to an end. Had he lived, and had he and Balbinus even tried to work together, he may gone on to successfully fortify and defend the empire's borders. Sadly we'll never know. Lesson: dislike people all you want, but if it's for a larger purpose then work with them and get over yourself.

Best name of any emperor. Ever.

Very underrated and lots of potential here. Look at how he dealt with the Parthians , clearing up the mess Caracalla made. He also had some decent skills as a general based on his leadership at Nisbis. Nobody is going to put him in the top 20 but he had some ability and probably deserves to be in the middle of the ranks.

He deposed the despot Caracalla, so he can't be that bad.

Viewed by some as a fairly good emperor, Phillip the Arab was also complicit in the assassination of the promising young Gordian III. His lavish celebrations, military campaigns, and fiscal incompetence nearly bankrupted Rome.

How Caracalla receives any upvotes at all is beyond my comprehension. He was probably the most purely evil person who ever held the office of Emperor.

Remembered by some as the emperor responsible for the construction of the famous baths named after him, Caracalla is also praised by some as the ruler who had the foresight and wisdom to grant full citizenship to all freemen within the Roman Empire. However, this seemingly enlightened act was only undertaken to increase tax revenues after reckless financial policies had devalued the Roman currency. Perhaps the Caracalla's most lasting legacy is as the monster who murdered his brother at what was intended to be a peaceful parley and reconciliation and went on to purge most of his extended family. He is infamous, as well, for the murder of upwards of 20 000 citizens in the city of Alexandria who refused to acknowledge his propaganda regarding the murders. His peace and marriage proposal to the Parthians in 216 was used as an excuse to massacre the guests and bride following the wedding, inspiring the events of the 'Red Wedding' in author George R.R. Martin's epic fantasy series 'A Song of Ice and Fire.' All in all, one Rome's absolute worst emperors.

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.

All prejudices aside, simply not a very good emperor. Elagabalus came to the throne through political maneuverings at the tender age of 14. During his reign, he caused religious upheaval by installing an Eastern Sun God at the head of the Roman pantheon and making himself the high priest. Many contemporary sources describe him as a transsexual, which was not offensive in and of itself. However, his wildly exhibitionist displays (and indulgent and childish behaviour) caused endless scandal and made a mockery of the office of the princeps. While he is often given credit for being the first emperor to allow women into the senate, this seemingly forward-thinking reform was actually the result of power-brokering on the part of his grandmother, Julia Maesa.

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!

His settlement of the Gothic War laid the seeds for provinces to break away from the West over the next century, and his dynasty was critically undermined by his early death. Personally effective as a stabilising force, but did not build much that would last beyond him.

The last strong emperor of a united empire. Deserves better. The rise of (sometimes fanatical) Christianity was not under his control.

Had similar vices to his brother. His only real plus was his more amiable nature. His murder makes him more sympathetic, but I have no doubt a Geta who strikes first will be remembered much like Caracalla is today.

poorly he got damnatio memoriae

Poor Geta. Got murdered before he stood a chance.

A difficult emperor to evaluate, given that virtually all of what we know about him has been filtered through the propaganda machine of his successful challenger and successor, Diocletian. When this type of writing was not made up of outright lies, it tended to embellish existing negative character traits. Like his father Carus, Carinus was most likely a military man, noted for his bravery, ruthlessness, and womanizing ways. However, the portrayal of him as one of Rome's absolute worst emperors in completely unreliable and largely false.

One of the worst emperors

Nero was definitely a bad emperor and should be towards the bottom. However, with his mother, Seneca, Pallas (plus the other Claudian freedmen), Burrus and other early advisors, even when left to his own perverse and violent devices, the empire broadly kept on a positive course. Nero's failure to have any public experience can be compared exactly to Claudius, but perhaps his youth when succeeding to the principate combined with a lack of any understanding of the principate's history made him unable to effectively govern on his own after he killed off the Claudian-era advisors.

deserved to be 3rd to last with caligula and commodus behind him

Basically was indulging himself whilst Rome was burning. Horrible excuse for an emperor.

Truly one of Rome's worst emperors, Nero was an indulged, temperamental, and irresponsible tyrant who did not so much rule Rome as he made it his personal playground. Had he not been emperor, he would have most likely have been seen as a harmless fop, but his ambition, eccentricity, and lack of accountability led to vicious excesses that threw the Roman economy into turmoil. A supreme egotist, he traveled to Greece, mandated that an Olympics be held in his honour, entered said Olympics, and proceeded to collect 1081 Gold Medals seeing as nobody dared to upstage the Emperor. Perhaps his only significant positive contribution was the well-executed rebuilding of Rome following the great fire of 64 AD.

what are you thinking he was the worst roman ever

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!!!!

Was smart to try to deal with the drained imperial treasury, among other things, and perhaps acted rightly (in not bribing the soldiers) but not wisely, because it definitely got him killed. He had no flexibility and not enough political savvy to see Otho's coming vengeance. He could've done much better than he did. But stretching his neck out to his killers in defiance? What a man!

In my classes, I'm trying to learn about Galba, I need to know if he was a good guy, or a bad guy. Do you know any sites with information about him? Also, do you know why this is asking me to "Do the math"

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.

In a vacuum it's easy to chastise him for losing everything south of Anatolia, but that's a surface reading of the situation. Having to deal with a wholly new force a few years after you and a rival empire concluded a 25 year long war is a challenge for anyone, and I think the defense of the core provinces is to his credit, especially when you consider that the Sassanids were completely conquered by the same force. I doubt any Emperor could have done much more.

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.

Komnenos was a truly impressive ruler - both a military and political genius in the mold of Aurelian eight hundred years earlier. He was not, however, a Roman, much as the Byzantine rulers may have viewed themselves as Roman Emperors.

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

Why is just Valerianus so down? He only try to do the best for Rome with his son Gallienus. He was cruel to christians but it is not reason to be bad ruler. Catastrophe was his action against Persians for future years of empire, for its existence even. And is wonder that Gallienus was able to save his life for next 8 years and of lost part of empire he made many victories over the german tribes, was great soldier. But unlucky ruler. Maybe when he did not be assassinated in 268, he was able to beat Postumus and put Galia back to empire.

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....

He and his father died too soon to rate how good he was, probably bad enough to get them killed that soon.

Assuming you mean the son of Theodosius I - there is no Honorius II - he wasn't outright bad, he just left little impact on the world. He started as an eight year old boy and it was left to his court to run things, and for rivals to enter the court and jockey for position, while he didn't do much of anything. In the 5th century west, very few emperors contributed much. Most decisions were taken by generals and advisors.

All his greatest achievements were before he was crowned, though had he continued in that streak he'd definitely be a contender for best 5th Century Emperor. However there was also maneuvering that suggests he may have been positioning for war with Constantinople, which would have done the West no favours. That's speculation though, and Emperor or not he was a credit to the empire.

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!

Had the best of intentions, but the road to hell and all that. All his reforms meant squat when he demonstrated an ambitious general could set the law aside.

For Gaius Julius Caesar the Roman consul and later dictator who was more famous in military than in politics (I'm not saying if he was bad at it or not, if possible please don't bother commenting about it) to be called an emperor, Sulla being listed as an emperor is not that irrelevant.

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's pretty much the reason the Pax Romana ended. Horrible emperor.

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?

Y'all be believing tall tales and anecdotes written to demonize Caligula to make way for Claudius. He may have been assassinated because he was a monster or made into a monster because he was assassinated. It is equally possible.

Started out doing fairly well, but once his illness passed, he was a complete demon of a madman. Drained the sound (if not too sound) imperial treasury left by Tiberius. Created every reason in the book to be assassinated.

Honestly Caligula was lazy. He didn’t do much during his reign. He should at least be better than Commodus because Commodus was the one who let the Empire down.

Good thing he was left out in the street to rot where dogs and birds ate him ,

Commodus and Nero were bad, but, this guy... he was down right insane.

really :D ? ? ? Are you sure :D :D :D Caliga was the WORST ever dears!

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 !!!