Most underrated emperor?

[rasiel]

What's your vote for most underrated, least talked about Roman emperor? Plenty of obscure short-termers and usurpers of course but here's a guy who was in the thick of things and yet he flew under the radar. I don't know why but today I'm feeling bad for this fella... probably undeservedly. He likely was an awful human being like the rest of his peers.

Oh yeah, and Severus was his name-o!

Rasiel

 

[Ryro]

I always love these threads. People come up with some wild selections. 

Always in my top five, and savior of the empire many times over, I'm going with "manu ad ferrum" himself, Aurelian. Wild stories, overcame enumerate odds, and such a treacherous end:

Aurelian

Pisidia. Kremna AD 270-275.

Bronze Æ 32mm., 14,18g. Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right / Facing statue of Artemis Ephesia, with supports. nearly very fine Cf. Von Aulock, Pisidien II 1621-3.

Ex Savoca London

 

Edited August 16 by Ryro

[Kali]

My favorite underrated emperor is Gallienus.

Gallienus (253 - 268 A.D.)

AR Antoninianus
O: IMP C P LIC GALLIENVS AVG, Radiate and cuirassed bust right.
R: IOVI CONSERVA, Jupiter standing left, head turned right, holding scepter in right and thunderbolt in left.
5.1g
24mm
RIC 143F (Rome) Sear 10237

Gallienus (253 - 268 A.D.)

Egypt, Alexandria
Billon Tetradrachm
O: AVT K Π ΛIK ΓAΛΛIHNOC CЄB, laureate and cuirassed bust right
R: Homonoia seated left, right hand raised, left holding double cornucopia; IB/L to left, palm frond to right.Dated RY 12 (AD 264/265).
10.67g
22mm
Köln 2923; Dattari (Savio) 5249; K&G 90.80; Emmett 3817.12.

[MrMonkeySwag96]

In my opinion, Anastasius I Dicorus is one of the most underrated Late Roman/Byzantine emperors. Anastasius enacted many economic & monetary reforms that left the imperial treasury with a sizable surplus, allowing his successor Justinian to fund the wars to reconquer the western provinces.  

Due to Anastasius’s monetary reforms, his coinage represent the last Roman Imperial coins and the beginning of Byzantine coins.  

I currently don’t own any coins of Anastasius, though I plan on getting a gold Solidus and bronze Follis someday. 
 

 

Edited August 16 by MrMonkeySwag96

[Curtisimo]

I’m going to go with Lucius Verus. He liked to party too much and he was much less capable than his co-emperor Marcus Aurelius but he performed the duties that were directly assigned to him with an adequate level of competence. My below example highlighting his victory over Parthia is a good example. He was no great general but he at least allowed his more experienced subordinates to do their jobs without murdering them immediately afterwards in a jealous rage. Additionally, he is one of the only emperors I know of that was content to be the junior member of a partnership with a fellow emperor. He never tried to overthrow or overshadow Marcus and when he died of plague Marcus was personally devastated and grieved for him. All in all I think he did better than most but is mostly remembered unfavorably in comparison to Marcus.

Roman Empire
Lucius Verus (AD 161-169)
AR Denarius, Rome mint, struck ca. AD 165-166
Dia.: 18 mm
Wt.: 3.30 g
Obv.: L VERVS AVG ARM PARTH MAX; Laureate bust right
Rev.: TR P VI IMP IIII COS II; Victory standing right holding palm branch and placing a shield inscribed VIC PAR on a palm tree
Ref.: RIC 566
Ex Zeus Numismatics Budget Auction 10, lot 716 (July 12, 2020)

[Finn235]

Trebonianus Gallus was faced with a dilemma when he was declared emperor following the death of Decius and after he had bought peace from Cniva - Decius had a young son Hostilian who was due to inherit the purple as Decius' designated heir.

Nobody would have batted an eye if Gallus had ordered the boy killed - it had been the norm for decades at this point. But, Gallus decided to adopt Hostilian and name him co-emperor, even passing over his own son to do so. He also allowed Decius' widow to retain her title as Augusta. Gallus for me is one of the kindest souls who ever called himself Augustus.

It's a shame he was an *awful* emperor, though.

[ambr0zie]

I would go for Nerva. In his short reign he proved he was wise and moderate and managed to restore the liberties which had been curtailed during the autocratic government of Domitian and restored the prestige of the Senate. Also he solved the succesion problem by adopting a capable and popular general - Trajan. 

19 mm, 2,78 g.
Nerva 96-98 AD. AR denarius. Rome. 97 AD.
IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR POT, head of Nerva, laureate, right / COS III PATER PATRIAE, simpulum, sprinkler, ewer and lituus (simpulum,

[Prieure de Sion]

8 hours ago, rasiel said:

What's your vote for most underrated, least talked about Roman emperor?

Most underrated… ? What a question… Gordianus III 😂

[JayAg47]

It's Augustus!

Walk down the street and ask a random person who was the first Roman emperor and most would say Julius Caesar, followed by Nero or Caligula or even Antony! When considering underrated Roman emperor, Augustus comes to my mind. That guy played the real GOT, took down Brutus and Cassius with the help of Mark Antony, and then defeating Antony with Agrippa by his side, out-smarted Cicero. He single handedly ended the Republic, yet maintaining its facade while consolidating his powers as the sole Roman emperor. A real life Palpatine, in fact Augustus ruled for 4 decades! double that of the Galactic emperor. Yet, overshadowed by his uncle, that eastern witch cleopatra, and his crazy grand-sons. 

 

[John Conduitt]

I think we do quite a good job of covering all the emperors. If anyone is not talked about, there is a reason.

One we perhaps don't talk about as much as would be warranted is Theodosius I. A search for him on Numisforums gives only 282 results, and at least two-thirds of those are actually Theodosius II or about some other relative. But Theodosius 'the Great' ruled for 16 years and made lasting peace with the Sassanians. He made peace with and defeated the Goths, Magnus Maximus (who is talked about more) and Eugenius (who gets about 30 mentions per year reigned vs 5 for Theodosius I). He reunited the Empire for the last time.

Perhaps most importantly, he established the Nicene Creed. This, although it involved persecuting pagans, unified, established and shaped Christianity, and so the modern world. Constantine I takes all the credit but without Theodosius I, we'd be talking a lot less about Constantine I.

He was a thoughtful emperor rather than a bold, decisive one but his impact was huge. Yet his reputation might be diminished because his sons, Arcadius and Honorius, were terrible. There's also the matter of his coins, which are the cartoonish, homogenised siliquae favoured in the 4th century - they don't inspire much discussion.

Theodosius I Siliqua, 388-392

Treveri. Silver, 1.68g. Pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right; D N THEODO-SIVS P F AVG. Roma seated left on cuirass, holding reversed spear and Victoriola on globe; VIRTVS RO-MANORVM; TRPS in exergue (RIC IX, 94b). From the Vale of Pewsey (Wiltshire) Hoard 2020, Portable Antiquities Scheme: BM-7D34D9.

Edited August 16 by John Conduitt

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

I'd say Gallienus. Widely panned by historians including a character assassination by Edward Gibbon which stuck in the history books for 220 years.

But new research is reforming his reputation. He created the mobile field army under his general Aureolus emphasizing horsemen which improved the speed at which the Romans could respond to incursions.  He inherited a poor economic situation across the Empire and dealt with the capture of his Father by the Persians. Also, he managed a 15-year reign in a time of tumult, in contrast to predecessors Gordian III (6 years), Phillip the Arab (5 years), Trajan Decius (2 years), Trebonianus Gallus (2 years), Aemilianus (3 months). Nor did his successors last much longer than a few years up until the time of Diocletian, who probably is up there with Augustus as far as being the most transformational leaders but of course if you walked down 5th Avenue and asked folks to name a Roman emperor I doubt a single person could identify him, nor Gallienus for that matter.

Here Gallienus is acclaimed Germanicus Maximus for the fifth time.

Edited August 16 by Ancient Coin Hunter

[Victor_Clark]

 

The last person given the title of pharoah-- Maximinus Daza

 

 

Maximinus II
A.D. 309- 310
Ӕ follis 26mm 6.4g
MAXIMINVS NOB CAES; Helmeted (with gryphon crest) and cuirassed bust left, holding spear over his right shoulder and shield decorated with two horsemen with Draco standards

(a bit from Ammianus Marcellinus on the draco standards carried by the horsemen on the shield-
"Behind the motley cavalcade that preceded him the emperor's person was surrounded by purple banners woven in the form of dragons and attached to the tops of gilded and jewelled spears; the breeze blew through their gaping jaws so that they seemed to be hissing with rage, and their voluminous tails streamed behind them on the wind." The Later Roman Empire book 16 10:7)

riding to left, four enemies below them; on cuirass, gorgoneion; on helmet, Sol standing facing in quadriga, raising his right hand in salute and holding globe in his left, around, stars and crescent, crest ending in griffin.)

VIRTVS EXERCITVS; Mars standing front, head to left, resting right hand on decorated shield and holding spear in left; in field to left, lighted altar; B in right field.
In ex. ANT RIC VI Antioch 125

 

The mint of Antioch struck this type for Galerius and Maximinus. Antioch was likely the principal residence of Maximinus from 309- 311, so not surprising this special type was struck there. This type may also have referenced the campaign against the Sassanids (not only the martial bust, but also battle scene on shield) waged by Maximinus (late 309-early 310) and perhaps also his desire to be named Augustus; which may have happened during the same campaign-- “at the last general muster he had been saluted by his army under the title of Augustus.” (Lactantius XXXII) Galerius recognized him as Augustus (mid 310) but since the troops of Maximinus had already raised him up, this was probably just a formality.

[Kali]

2 hours ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

I'd say Gallienus. Widely panned by historians including a character assassination by Edward Gibbon which stuck in the history books for 220 years.

But new research is reforming his reputation. He created the mobile field army under his general Aureolus emphasizing horsemen which improved the speed at which the Romans could respond to incursions.  He inherited a poor economic situation across the Empire and dealt with the capture of his Father by the Persians. Also, he managed a 15-year reign in a time of tumult, in contrast to predecessors Gordian III (6 years), Phillip the Arab (5 years), Trajan Decius (2 years), Trebonianus Gallus (2 years), Aemilianus (3 months). Nor did his successors last much longer than a few years up until the time of Diocletian, who probably is up there with Augustus as far as being the most transformational leaders but of course if you walked down 5th Avenue and asked folks to name a Roman emperor I doubt a single person could identify him, nor Gallienus for that matter.

Here Gallienus is acclaimed Germanicus Maximus for the fifth time.

Nice to see another member in the "Gallienus Fan Club".

[seth77]

Constantius II

[hotwheelsearl]

How about Valentinian III who ruled for like 30 years but whose coins are very expensive and hard to find?

[Dafydd]

I suppose the definition of underrated can be ambiguous. Overlooked or made no impact or made a profound difference lost in time?

I have some sympathy for Diadumenian , condemned at birth by his parentage and didn't live long enough to make any impact, the only impact being whatever coins survived after being declared damnatio memoriae after his death by the Senate. Quite how a child can be an enemy of Rome defeats me unless by descendancy. 

 

Diadumenian, 217-218. Denarius, Rome. M OPEL ANT DIADVMENIAN CAES Draped and cuirassed bust of Diadumenian to right. Rev. PRINC IVVENTVTIS Diadumenian standing front, his head turned to right, holding standard in his right hand and scepter in his left; to his right, two standards. Cohen 3. RIC 102.
Condition: Very Fine
Weight: 3.25 gr
Diameter: 20 mm   

Edited August 18 by Dafydd
Typo

[AlexandersNumismatics]

100% Majorian. The man nearly turned the collapse into just the '5th century crisis'. 

 

One of his coins is on my hope for a lottery win wishlist 😅

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

10 hours ago, AlexandersNumismatics said:

100% Majorian. The man nearly turned the collapse into just the '5th century crisis'. 

 

One of his coins is on my hope for a lottery win wishlist 😅

 Yes: According to Wikipedia:

"The 6th-century writer Procopius Caesariensis asserted that Majorian "surpassed in every virtue all who have ever been emperors of the Romans", whilst Sidonius Apollinaris, a contemporary of the emperor, stated, "That he was gentle to his subjects; that he was terrible to his enemies; and that he excelled in every virtue, all his predecessors who had reigned over the Romans."

He defeated all of the major barbarian groups and prepared a massive seaborne invasion of Africa to crush the Vandals. However, traitors in his army leaked plans of the invasion to his foe, resulting in the destruction of his fleet. It was the last major attempt to retake those important provinces until the time of Justinian and Belisarius. However he was undermined by Ricimer, toppled and executed.

Edited August 17 by Ancient Coin Hunter

[Hrefn]

On 8/16/2024 at 6:50 AM, John Conduitt said:

I think we do quite a good job of covering all the emperors. If anyone is not talked about, there is a reason.

One we perhaps don't talk about as much as would be warranted is Theodosius I. A search for him on Numisforums gives only 282 results, and at least two-thirds of those are actually Theodosius II or about some other relative. But Theodosius 'the Great' ruled for 16 years and made lasting peace with the Sassanians. He made peace with and defeated the Goths, Magnus Maximus (who is talked about more) and Eugenius (who gets about 30 mentions per year reigned vs 5 for Theodosius I). He reunited the Empire for the last time.

Perhaps most importantly, he established the Nicene Creed. This, although it involved persecuting pagans, unified, established and shaped Christianity, and so the modern world. Constantine I takes all the credit but without Theodosius I, we'd be talking a lot less about Constantine I.

He was a thoughtful emperor rather than a bold, decisive one but his impact was huge. Yet his reputation might be diminished because his sons, Arcadius and Honorius, were terrible. There's also the matter of his coins, which are the cartoonish, homogenised siliquae favoured in the 4th century - they don't inspire much discussion.

Another vote for Theodosius the Great!  He was successful in everything he undertook.  Sadly, he died only 4 months after his victory over the Western rebels at the river Frigidus.  Worse, he was succeeded by two incompetent sons, who seem to have been completely useless.  The course of the Empire, had Theodosius lived longer, is one of the great speculations of history.  

 

 

Theodosius I the Great. 379-395 AD.   Obverse shows the Emperor facing right with pearl diadem, cuirass and cloak.  DNTHEODO SIUSPFAUG.  Reverse shows Constantinopolis with mural crown, seated right, foot on prow, holding long scepter and a plain globus.  The mural crown is uncommon.  CONCOR DIAAUCCC dot.  In exergue, CONOB

Theodosius I fathered Arcadius and Honorius by his first wife, and Galla Placidia by his second.  His reign was troubled by the revolts of Magnus Maximus and Eugenius (creature of Arbogast) in the West.  He settled the Goths as foederati after some inconclusive warfare with them, which proved a fateful decision.  Champion of Nicean orthodoxy, and a saint of the Eastern church.  He signed the Edict of Thessalonica on February 27, 380 AD, making Catholic Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. 

Struck 380 AD.   

[LONGINUS]

 

Thank you for your interesting post, Rasiel. I’m having a lot of fun reading the selections from our fellow forum members.
I hope I'm not bending the rules too much but, I’m going to post one of my favorite Royal Romans.

 

She wasn’t an emperor, but her influence was undeniably imperial.

Edited August 21 by LONGINUS