Worst roman emperor page 2 alternate history discussion k electric bill payment online

############

Diocletian’s Edit on Maximum Prices in 301 destroyed much of the Roman economy, and potentially set conditions for fedualism. The inflation that he caused made it impossible to pay the army in later years. I am also of the opinion that the Tetarchy was a bad thing. That is just asking for parts of the empire to break off, and IMO set the precedence for the chaos in multiple Emperors by the 5th century. Diocletian did not want the Tetarchy to become dynastic… it did. Constantine was betrothed to Maximian’s daughter even! The system was flawed- and Diocletian allowed his successors to have at each other and destabilize the Empire while he was still alive. Power-sharing never seems to work out in the Roman Empire. The Severans who divided it were a disaster, the Constantinians just killed each other, and the Theodosians the same. The partnership between Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus was not as pronounced a split as these. In contrast, Aurelian was able to hold the entire Empire together during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and regained the lost territories. IMO it is he who should gas to liquid be thanked for Rome’s survival.

Perhaps the worst part of Diocletian’s Tetarchy however, was the accleration of the split between east and west. Internal trade and cultural contacts lessened as essentially foreign powers ruled in the other hal of the Empire. Persecutions of Christians (Diocletian) and pagans (later Emperors) were an attempt to standardize the religious orthodoxy of the state. However, this only aggravated the differences between East and West. His imperial command economy caused economic decline when implemented. The Empire being split should not have hurt it as much as did, but it did so, and made it near to impossible for the two halves to effectively cooperate under more than one ruler, and caused distrust and cultural differences in one part versus another. A personal theory of mine is that it indirectly gave usurpers legitimacy. The approval of Constantine as Caesar by Galerius does not seem that different from the appointments of Stilicho, Aetius, and other military strongmen electricity outage san antonio. This thread is not here to debate the quality of those strongmen, but a semi-legal way to make your usurpation last is bad. Before, loyal troops may very well put down a revolt. But if an anti-Emperor can claim approval? Nope. IMO, tanc, he rebuilt the Empire into a carved up polarizing state and created a system that encouraged usurpers and caused mass inflation.

Diocletian’s Edit on Maximum Prices in 301 destroyed much of the Roman economy, and potentially set conditions for fedualism. The inflation that he caused made it impossible to pay the army in later years. I am also of the opinion that the Tetarchy was a bad thing. That is just asking for parts of the empire to break off, and IMO set the precedence for the chaos in multiple Emperors by the 5th century. Diocletian did not want the Tetarchy to become dynastic… it did. Constantine was betrothed to Maximian’s daughter even! The system was flawed- and Diocletian allowed his successors to have at each other and destabilize the Empire while he was still alive. Power-sharing never seems to work out in the Roman Empire. The Severans who divided it were a disaster, the Constantinians just killed each other, and the gas hydrates are used Theodosians the same. The partnership between Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus was not as pronounced a split as these. In contrast, Aurelian was able to hold the entire Empire together during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and regained the lost territories. IMO it is he who should be thanked for Rome’s survival.

Perhaps the worst part of Diocletian’s Tetarchy however, was the accleration of the split between east and west. Internal trade and cultural contacts lessened as essentially foreign powers ruled in the other hal of the Empire. Persecutions of Christians (Diocletian) and pagans (later Emperors) were an attempt to standardize the religious orthodoxy of the state. However, this only aggravated the differences between East and West. His imperial command economy caused economic decline when implemented. The Empire being split should not have hurt it as much as did, but it did so, and made it near to impossible for the two halves to effectively cooperate under more than one ruler, and caused distrust and cultural differences in one part versus another. A personal theory of mine is that it indirectly gave usurpers legitimacy. The approval of Constantine as Caesar by Galerius does not seem that different from the appointments of Stilicho, Aetius, and other military strongmen. This thread is not here to debate the quality of those strongmen, but a semi-legal way to make your usurpation last is bad. Before, loyal troops may very well put down a revolt. But if an anti-Emperor can claim approval? Nope. IMO, tanc, he rebuilt the Empire into a carved up polarizing state and created a system that encouraged usurpers and caused mass inflation.

Worst emperor. Well, what is worst? The various contenders lived and reigned in different times and circumstances. Sometimes they were just men who would have been moderately bad in another age, but happened to rule at the worst possible moment. I think perhaps we should ask ourselves: which of the various bad emperors would be bad under any circumstance? The answer becomes pretty clear, pretty soon.

I would not want to live under Caligula, Caracalla or Commodus ever. With those kind of men in charge, you are not safe, regardless of the era or your social position or background. If a monster is on the throne, and times are terrible, and there is a great enemy, and the monster happens to be a military genius– then maybe we can say it as all for the best. But this was not the case in any of these three instances, nor is it usually the case at all.

Generally, I’d say Caligula is the worst Roman emperor… but only barely beating out Caracalla. Both were highly disturbing gas prices going up or down figures who did things that cannot be excused by the standards of the time or anything like that. Even if only half of what we are told by the histories of their terrible actions is true… they’re still grade-A monsters.

Commodus wasn’t as bad as those two, but he was also pretty bad. There’s a bit of a revisionist tendency these days to treat all the horror-stories about him with a pinch of salt, mostly identifying him as just totally unfit to rule. That last bit is true, but Commodus was a monstrously cruel man regardless gas engine efficiency. Again, even by the standards of the day. Rounding up undesirables, handing them butcher’s knives, and forcing them to carve each other to death in the arena? Not exactly a confidence-inspiring sort of policy. The fact that Commodus comes off better than Caligula and Caracalla tells us volumes about how terrible they were.

So those three, in that order, would be my leading contenders in general. Two others who were obviously bad and unfit to rule were Nero and Elegabalus. Nero gets a terrible reputation, but was mostly just a really bad artist with delusions of grandeur… and a very poor financial administrator. Of all his many faults, his crushing taxes were the worst of his deeds. (And if we’re going to call emperors out on their economic stupidity, Diocletian is indeed far worse than Nero.) Elegabalus, on the other hand, isn’t so terrible at all by comparison. Clearly rather… unusual, and his strange desires and antics caused major problems… but in no way equal to the far more dangerous problems of the above figures. Also, far more than Commodus, there is quite some evidence that many of the stories about Elegabalus were exaggerated later on, to discredit him. At least to some extent. So I’d say he as unfit to rule, but not the kind of monster some call him. A healthy state could easily survive a reign such as his without any lasting problems.

If we do not act by such abstract standards, and instead wonder whose reign was worst for Rome in the long run… I’m actually in agreement with @Mental_Wizard. Diocletian’s policies were objectively terrible, and later led to a lot of problems. Het gets credited with solving the crisis? Credit that is not his due by any means, if you ask me. His inflationary monetary policies were a terrible example for later rulers, who eagerly imitated them… which I consider a major cause for Rome’s ultimate fall. Runaway inflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy. While Diocletian wasn’t the first to debase the money, he did it on such a scale that I consider him the progenitor of this whole problem, which would continue to haunt Rome. His edit on maximum prices, while less horrible in the long run (because it didn’t get imitated), caused major problems and suffering in the short term (as such policies always do). While later revoked, the damage was done.

His persecution of Christians was so terrible that I consider it a major cause for Christian violence in destroying pagan culture later on. Theirs was a bloody revenge. While Christian institutions later co-opted pagan gas yourself in car centres of learning etc., Christianity did destroy a lot of pagan institutions soon after it came into power. I trace that back to a sense of virulent enmity, in which persecutions such as the only by Diocletian ( especially that one, even) must be considered the central impetus. Without Diocletian and his persecution, I really feel the earliest two centuries of Christian dominance in Rome would have involved far less destruction of pagan history and legacy, and more early co-opting instead. The world would be richer for it.