I'm trying to create a tier list for Roman Emperors. Can /his/ help me out?
God tier:
Augustus
Based Nero
Titus 'Kike Killer' Caesar
Hadrian 'Build the Wall' Augustus
Marcus Aurelius
Constantine
>>16722
Trajan, Diocletian and Justinian belong in the top tier.
>>16722
>constantine
He brought the fall of the Roman empire for the triumph of Christianity. He is shit tier.
>>17191
Edward Gibbon please stop shitposting. You were wrong about Christianity back then, and you're still wrong now.
>>17191
The Roman Empire was already falling since the assassination of Severus Alexander. It just took a really long time. Saying Constantine is to blame implies that the empire would have pieced itself back together if it remained pagan, but all the evidence indicates that that wasn't true.
People like Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine, and Theodosius were powerful personalities who held the empire together, but nobody was able to reverse the decline. As soon as the reigning badass died the empire would just revert into another civil war, Christian or not.
Nero for helping Rome be less of a fire hazard with shitty living conditions
I have to ask, it the stuff about Nero and Caligula true? Or is it just memes?
Julian The Apostate was the last good one.
>>17414
This will blow your mind:
Every single one of the emperors who have stories of crazy incest, brutality, madness, etc, and who were not deified, are all the same ones who tried to curtail the senatorial classes' power. The ones that didn't and even reversed these changes, all went down as literal gods.
Now guess who wrote the histories of these Emperors.
>>16722
>No Aurelian
>>17464
Hast thou consumed the scarlet elixer?
>>16488
Bottom tier:
>Commodus
>Caligvla
>All those ones that were assassinated after a few weeks
>>17464
I would agree except for maybe Elagabalus.
Whatever list you make, do not ignore great emperors from the Crisis of the Third Century. There were some based ones there, like Gallienus, who basically saved the Empire from collapse, Probus and Aurelian, who reunified it after it was divided in three.
>>17521
Any of the military emperors were shit tier
>>16722
>marcus aurelius
why?
he ruined the adoptive emperor scheme by naming his son as successor
during his time germans were getting bolder and bolder and romans less successful
he is literally meme emperor, only famous for his stoic writings and if you study stoicism you would know he is not that important either.
Justinian and Marcus Aurelius are literally meme emperors.
>>16488
Laid the Foundation tier:
>Julius Caesar
The OG tier
>Augustus
God Tier:
Hadrian
Trajan
Aurelian
Constantine
Majorian
Julian
Hack Tier:
Justinian
Shit Tier
Caligula
Commodus
how is it that the three spanish emperors where among the bests if not the bests
literally top tier
>>17634
What's meme about Justinian?
>>16722
>no justinian
FAG
>>17634
>he ruined the adoptive emperor scheme
There never was a scheme. The previous emperors weren't getting laid but Marcus was. Commodus was sane and healthy as far as anyone could tell. For Marcus to have adopted a successor would have been ludicrous.
>>17691
His wars caused more destruction to Italy than the Germanic invasions themselves.
Caligula is best
>>17691
Theodora and Belisarius did all the work and even then you could argue it put another nail in the coffin for the Roman legacy because those fucking wars crippled the Byzantine economy.
Is there anyone autistic enough to actually rank all the Roman Emperors and put them into tier lists?
Hard Mode: include Byzantine Emperors
>>17716
>Commodus was sane and healthy as far as anyone could tell.
Marcus Aurelius Internet Defense Force please go.
>>17758
>Is there anyone autistic enough
This is 4chan. Any post that begins with this question can usually be answered yes.
>>17758
If we're including Constantinople era, Alexios Komnenos was the baddest motherfucker alive during the crusades
>>17758
Even if someone did there would be autists tearing it apart because it's subjective.
One of those autists would probably be me.
>>17751
>another nail in the coffin
The Roman empire resisted hundreds of years after Justinian
Theodora a bitch but Belisarius was pretty based
>>17691
he is only popular because he is famous, literally a meme.
If you studied him you would know he was neither a brilliant administrator nor a brilliant tactician, but someone who ruined the treasury so excellently accumulated by Anastasius, who made a lot of false predictions while invading africa and italy (thinking the province would pay for themselves) and was a coward who tried to flee nika riots and never commanded soldiers on the battlefield.
Anastasius, even Heracilus is a better emperor, for all that land loss he literally saved empire from the point of utter destruction and personally lead armies deep into persia, Justinian just overspend the cash that was gathered by his predecessor while sitting on his ass in Constantinople
>>17758
Nightmare mod: include Latin Emperors of Constantinople AND Holy Roman Emperors.
>>17882
and he contributed to Justinian Code what exactly?
if anyone respect Tribonian etc, you don't hold Theodosiıus II in high regard just because of Codex Theodosianus and Theodosian Walls
>>17886
>holy roman emperors
Germans pls go
>>17758
I made a list for shits and giggles including the Byzantine Emperors but I eschewed at least 50% of the emperors as being nobodies. I could post it if you want to criticizes my choices.
>>17886
>Latin Emperors
literally trash tier crusader states in the balkans.
>muh Massacre of the Latins
>muh blind doge
>muh sack
Crusaders were nigger tier in the 4th Crusade. Basically drove the nail into the coffin of the Byzantines.
>>17652
>Laid the Foundation tier:
>Julius Caesar
So democracy destroying military coups are good now?
>>17191
>Christianity is responsible for the fall of Rome
Get off /hist/
>>16488
Are we counting Byzantines? If so I'd recommend Justinian and Alexios Komnenos. For trve Emperors I'd say Augustus, Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius
>>19395
>implying there is no merit to be considered in that argument
>implying it wasn't a factor which we should consider
conflict of interest pls go
>>19468
It is so goddamn irrelevant compared to the mass disasters that had been afflicting Rome for hundreds of years prior Paul even setting foot in Italy.
The idea that Rome was torn apart by a civil war between Christians and Pagans is so goddamn false that the idea can be dismissed by greentext.
>>19393
>Rome
>Democracy
Nice meme.
>>19539
>The idea that Rome was torn apart by a civil war between Christians and Pagans is so goddamn false that the idea can be dismissed by greentext.
That's a bit of a strawman isn't it? I think any massive institutional/cultural change in a large country is indicitive of a crisis at the very least, and I would be very interested in reading an argument which posits that it wouldn't contribute to a certain extent to said crisis.
>>19683
>implying rome was better after julius stormed the capital to stay in power
When was Rome at it's absolute height?
Was it during the Pax Romana?
>>20088
>implying it was just to stay in power
senate was going to fuck him the moment he crossed the rubicon without his army, not his fault he saw through it and decided that was enough bullshit for a lifetime
>>17464
While I agree, there is probably some level of truth, just not nearly as bad as they say.
In the end of the day Nero was loved by the common people but hated by the aristocracy and senators, because he was trying to marginalize their power. According to Seneca the guy was extremely paranoid so he probably thought everyone was out to get him. Which inadvertently he caused that to happen.
>>20125
Either that or when they had the most provinces under Trajan.
>>16770
>Justinian
naw
his only triumph was the Hagia Sophia
>>16722
>not Augustus tier
>>20125
under Augustus/Tiberius it was at its pinnacle as a complete society
>>19876
The Western Roman Empire, as Rome had been split by Imperial Decree, was laid low by a toxic mixture of centuries long corruption which was compounded by:
The mass migration of barbarians caused by climate change, ineffectual governance as the empire had grown too large to manage. The military which had to manage this mess incorporated more mercenaries and barbarians who had no patriotic loyalty to Rome, and when mistreated caused frequent rebellions and sackings which demonstrated the weakness of the city-state. The title of Emperor was literally sold by the Praetorian so weak and vulnerable was the fucking head office of the entire empire, with the few successful personalities only maintaining this mess until they died then succession wars would immediately undo everything done.
The rise of Christianity came at the time of the Western Roman Empires fall, but they had not a jot to do with eachother.
>>20165
so he brought down the state and became dictator for the rest of his life so he wouldn't die? he was a powerthirsty military guy.
>>20207
Borders aren't an indication of stability, the Empires large areas arguably caused its inability to defend itself.
Hell look at the Mongols, largest empire in the world yet gone in a page of history,
Of course the nature of the Marius Reforms meant that it was incredibly difficult not to wage a military campaign because of the terrible unemployment of well-trained soldiers who demand more land as promised.
>>20435
>he was a powerthirsty military guy.
Who also was a very capable administrator of Rome and not very violent compared to the other power thirsty military guys who tried to pull this shit before.
>Fought battles in ways to minimize casualities
>showed clemency to his enemies that surrendered
>didn't engages in Sullen styled extra judicial political murders
>agrarian reforms
Oh god why couldn't julius caesar be my dad.
>>20330
>Tiberus
Early Tiberius I can see.
Either Augustine Rome or Nerva-Antonine Rome for best ratio of strength to stability.
>>20125
The Pax Romana was a period of peace unprecedented in the Roman Empire, but you can't say it was the height, that was a long period of stagnation because Rome's "conquer for more resources" method was always how the Empire kept healthy.
Territory-wise, it would be under Trajan.
Influence-wise, it would be right around the time of Constantine where Rome was so influential China was dimly aware of it's existence halfway across the world.
Society-wise, probably right around the founding of the Empire at Augustus
Military-wise it would probably be around the fall of Macedon where Rome's legions were so militarily far ahead of everyone else that only the Parthians and co. could fight Rome with horse archers, even then they still got their shit rocked later on.
>>16488
Honorius "Cock Lover" Augustus should be in God tier.
>>20840
Good answer, loosely related but are there any decent strategies or counters to horse archers?
It just seems interesting how the Mongols mastery of this one troop type made them indestructible in war.
>>20341
All empires start to degrade and crumble once their institutions stop functioning as they are supposed to, and external factors can obviously exacerbate this (or cause unrelated crisesof course). Anything that worsens the institutions or changes them sufficiently rapidly will destabilise the empire, and a shock of sufficient magnitude will lead to its decline and end. These factors are interrelated and feedback into each other. The switch from polytheism and the change of christianity from illegal to mandatory in rome is definitely indicative of contemporary institutional weakness, and as a modifier of the religious institution and people's way of life at a very rapid pace, it most definitely contributed to general instability.
Now I agree with the fact that the roman empire had it coming for a while, but I don't think that the rise of christianity is free from blame here.
>>20913
yes, fortresses
horse archers are useless in sieges. you can pillage all you want around it, but you don't dare move past it until it's fallen because then you'll have an army behind you that wants to stick a sword in your shitter
>>20913
OOOOOOOH this post makes me angry.
Firstly, the horse archers are countered by entrenched defensive positions and mountain terrain.
Secondly, its the Mongolians adaptability that let them conquer everything, not just being a fucking blob of horse archers.
>>20668
Which all means nothing other than that he destroyed his country, became dictator and created a personality cult which you've now bought into 2000 years later
He could at least have had the decency to buff up the constitution and bring back all the essential checks and balances after his egotistical coup like Sulla did.
>>21009
>you will never ride with the keshiks during peak mongolia
why even live
>that east/west split
I cry evry tiem
YOU HAD IT ALL ROME, YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE.
>>21036
While it's true that Rome declined when it became an empire, it would have faced a much quicker death if the Republic stayed intact.
>>20668
But Ceasar was nasty to those who defended their own land. He captured Vercingetorix of the Gauls and imprisoned him, then publicly humiliated Vercingetorix in a parade in Rome.
>>21036
>essential checks and balances after his egotistical coup like Sulla did.
Lol?
All Sulla was murder three fourths of his opposition and then not have any oversight while his subordinates from the war proscribed hundreds of innocents for cash and petty grudges. Then Sulla got bored, returned everything to the old and corrupt, fucked off and died.
The minute he died popularii senators started to gain support again. Caesar's agrarian reforms were absolutely imperative to stop more social war scenarios. His assassination was a tragedy.
>>21414
Vercingetorix a shit. He burned as many Gaulic settlements as the Romans did.
>>21365
Eh it was arguably a necessary evil.
The split between Orthodox and Roman Christianity however caused much bigger problems.
>>21595
But that was justifiable as an attempt to deprive the Romans of resources and safe havens.
>>21681
>I the proud defender of the Gaulic peoples must defend my peoples from the encroaching Latin threat.
>And I shall do this by burning all the Aquitani villages from Bouges to what will eventually be known as Lyons
>>19157
It's not a lie that Latins were acting like niggers. Venetians and Genoans from Constantinople used to chimp against each other quite often, essentially damaging Byzantine property in the process.
>>21837
The Gaullic military was less disciplined than that of the Romans, and was made up of mainly laymen. The Romans had trained legionnaires, and Ceasar masterminding their campaign.
Vercingetorix's decision to raze Gallic settlements may have been impulsive, but it is understable given his young age at the time of the Gallic Wars.
>>16722
Shouldn't Hadrian be the kike killer? They still add something about disrespecting his remains when they talk about him today because he fucked them so hard.
>>22040
>chimp so hard, the known world gets conquered
>>21837
So Gauls were proto Russians?
>>22199
Even proto russians wouldn't have been defeated by goof ball tactics like building two walls.
Battle of Alesia is the strangest thing.
>>22405
I might be wrong but I think Marlborough did a similar thing with his sieges to great effect.
>>17886
The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. - Voltaire
>>22489
I'm unfamiliar with Marlborough but anyone who purposefully puts them self in a situation like Alesia is touched by insanity.
Honourable mention: Constantine XI Palaiologos.
Absolute shit-tier: Augustulus
>>16722
Sulla > those fags
>>17886
>Holy Roman Emperors
NOT ROMAN
