Maiorianus ranking of the best roman emperors

[buritobr]

According to his ranking, the best roman emperors were

1 Trajan (l 53-117, e 98-117)
2 Aurelian (l 214-275, e 270-275)
3 Marcus Aurelius (l 121-180, e 161-180)
4 Augustus (l 63BC-14, e 27BC-14)
5 Justinian (l 482-565, e 527-565)
6 Basil II (l 958-1025, e 976-1025)
7 Constantine XI (l 1405-1453, e 1449-1453)
8 Majorian (l 423-461, e 457-461)
9 Heraclius (l 575-641, e 610-641)
10 Valentinian I (l 321-375, e 364-375)

He explained that he didn't put Constantine I (272-337) in the top 10 because of his intolerance to non-Christians and because his decision to move the capital to Constantinople made the west weaker.

For me, this list is OK. The one I would exclude is only Constantine XI, the last emperor. I think a defeat with honor is not enough motive to include him in the top 10.

What do you think of this list?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atynq_cGFYI&t=199s

[ꙮ]

Having had the misfortune of watching some of his videos before, I will say his channel plays very fast and loose with the concept of history. He wholeheartedly subscribes to the idea that the Dark Ages were an era of unending misery and stagnation brought about by the post-Roman Christian rulers of Europe, and attacks modern woke revisionist historians for saying that this is not the case.

My personal favorite though is when he made a youtube short attacking Saint Augustine by describing the less-than-holy activities of his youth... which are well-known and essential parts of the story of his life and sainthood. Maiorianus described this like it was some sort of hidden scandal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The overrated ones:

Justinian - I fall more on the Prokopius view of Justinian and cannot really endorse him in full (I would honestly rank him below Anastasius I, for example). He wanted to leave a legacy, but he was destructive and self-serving, often at the expanse of the empire itself. This is a man who, even after most of his capital lay dead of plague, still inflexibly carried on his missions in spain (?) and carried out such a brutal war in italy he did more to destroy it than Odoacer, Ricimer or Alaric ever did. Also it is hilarious for someone to snub Constantine because of intolerance towards pagans (not accurate) and vaunt Justinian.

Constantine XI - Yeah saying he was a top ten is a shameless bit of sentimentality.

Heraclius -  maybe if he died before the arab invasions I could see it, but otherwise he is little more than a shaggy dog story (and I'm not that inclined to believe his destructive civil war that he initiated was necessary). Had a good few years in battle, and was wise to get in with the Khazars, but not top ten (in some ways i prefer other members of his dynasty like Constans). He also failed to unite the church, although I am sympathetic to any leader having to wade through that boneheaded dispute.

Majorian - another shaggy dog story, so not going to expand massively here.

I'm also not sure what to make of the high ranking of Valentinian, but I can't remember that much about the details of his reign right now. Can i really say I can think of much that makes him greater than, say Vespasian or Septimius Severus? Not really.

Augustus is underrated - i dislike him and his rise to power but he is sort of objectively the capital g Greatest of the Roman emperors.


Missing: Hadrian (really has to be in there with Trajan given what he represented; I can understand why people would not feel comfortable about him given his actions in Judea, but let's be real: all of these people were real bastards), Constantine I (neither of his reasons make remotely any sense - if the capital wasn't moved there's no way the Eastern Roman Empire would have survived imo), Leo III, John I Tzimiskes, Alexios Kommenos and his dynasty (aside from Andronikos).

Diocletian is also missing, although I think he's overrated as a central figure, given how most of his fixes were a mixture of dead on arrival, counterproductive or already happening anyway.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

My extremely half assed ranking (interesting enterprise tbh - also I only know the broad strokes of the post 4th crusade empire, so haven't bothered including any of them, even John III).

1) Augustus
2) Constantine
3) Trajan
4) Anastasius
5) Hadrian
6) Aurelian
7) John Tzimiskes
Alexios Kommenos
9) Leo III
10) Marcus Aurelius
11) Constantine X
12) Basil II
13) Claudius
14) Vespasian
15) Marcian
16) Justinian
17) antoninus Pius
18) Diocletian
19) Septimius Severus
20) Manuel Kommenos
21) Basil I
22) John Kommenos
23) Constans II
24) Constantius I
25) Heraclius
26) Leo I
27) Titus
28) Maurice
29) Zeno
30) Alexander Severus

People I have a soft spot for but can't fit in fairly: Domitian, Irene of Athens, Pertinax and Julian the Apostate

[Lumine]

Valentinian I in the top ten? That's quite the unusual perspective.

He does seem to place excessive merit on battlefield accomplishments as opposed to properly running the state, which leads to several candidates falling behind.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Having had the misfortune of watching some of his videos before, I will say his channel plays very fast and loose with the concept of history. He wholeheartedly subscribes to the idea that the Dark Ages were an era of unending misery and stagnation brought about by the post-Roman Christian rulers of Europe, and attacks modern woke revisionist historians for saying that this is not the case.

And there's the fact that the Roman Empire didn't really fall until 1453.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Valentinian I in the top ten? That's quite the unusual perspective.

He does seem to place excessive merit on battlefield accomplishments as opposed to properly running the state, which leads to several candidates falling behind.

Yes, looking at his honourable mentions seems to confirm this: lots of 3rd century barracks Emperors like Probus, Claudius Gothicus and Gallienus (?), as well as saying Augustus has a black mark against his name for not conquering germany. also he apparently considers Leo I's disastrous attempt to take back Vandal Africa to his credit?

[PSOL]

Julian the Apostate, Aurelian, and Caracalla are all massively underrated

[buritobr]

I realized that youtuber Maiorianus is very conservative when I observed his views on present issues. Despite his political views, I watch the channel due to the information on ancient history. But he is not like Christian conservatives, who claim that the Middle Ages were a glorious time. Maiorianus sees the end of the ancient world and the beggining of European Middle Ages a bad event.
There is some contradictions of his videos. I another video, he said that Justinian was overrated like Constantine and that he was also a prosecutor of the pagans. But in this other video, he included Justinian in the top 10.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I would mention Anastasius and Antoninus Pius

[progressive85]

I'm not surprised that Caligula and Nero are not on any such lists.  They would be right at the bottom, yes?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not surprised that Caligula and Nero are not on any such lists.  They would be right at the bottom, yes?

Both have very poor write ups in the surviving histories of the time, although the most complete histories - Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio - were all written decades after from a certain pro-senatorial bias. There is some amount of pro-Nero revisionism out there, mainly because he seemed to have at least some popularity in the lower classes of Rome. (And after he was offed, several individuals did try and seize his mantle)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I'm not surprised that Caligula and Nero are not on any such lists.  They would be right at the bottom, yes?

I would rate Nero as a good-to-great emperor. He was extremely popular with the common people, and his economic policy of monetary and fiscal stimulus in a deflationary period seems to have been a major success.