Who Is The Worse Emperor(S) That No One Likes?

Caligula and, somewhat less so, Elagabalus are, I believe, the classic disliked emperors, on the account of being known to history as horrible dictators (though to an extent that is because many emperors aren't very well known at all - most people had probably never heard of Maximinus II Daia, and would be hard-pressed to recall who Theodosius I is).

I vaguely remember having heard of some other obscure emperor (from the Crisis period? not very sure) who was also really awful, but I can't recall who it was precisely.

Was it Theodosius I or Theodosius II who did the whole Massacre of Thessalonica thing? I recall seeing (and replying to) an old CCF post that explained why he was also a very bad guy.

Hi January1may and yep it was Theodosius I. Who did the Massacre of Thessalonica. Also cool coin Dwayne8625

Nero also comes to mind - there's the classic (if literally untrue) anecdote of his "fiddling while Rome burns" that has come down to the present day as a figure of speech indicatiing a frivilous neglect of duty in a crisis situation. But there's really a smorgasbord of hedonistic, sadistic, capricious, and just plain unhinged emperors from which to choose.

Recommended reading on this topic:

My personal take:

Tiberius - Not exactly a bad person, but negligent and unstable. He let his "melancholy" consume him, to the detriment of the empire. He eventually became paranoid and handed out death sentences for perceived threats, much like Stalin during the height of his power.

Caligula - Wasteful, cruel, and "not all there" after the attempt to poison him. I do like to imagine that unusual commands such as ordering his soldiers to attack the ocean, or appointing a horse as consul were attempts at humor, rather than insanity.

Nero - Pretty well covered. He was a pretty cruel dude.

Commodus - Also well covered. He was infamous for slaughtering the helpless for his own amusement, apparently ordering amputees to be gathered from the streets so he could club them to death in the arena.

Didius Julianus - Classic example of poor judgement. Thought he could buy the purple from the Praetorians, then debase the currency to cheat them.

Caracalla - Impressively cruel and ruthless. Ordered the army to slaughter a crowd that had gathered to welcome him to Alexandria, because he was upset that an Alexandrian playwright had called him a coward for murdering his brother.

Elagabalus - I try to imagine that, as a child of 14, he was a victim of circumstance, but one must admit that his rule saw almost unparalleled debauchery.

Philip I - He would have made a good successor to Marcus Aurelius, but in the face of hardship, he was weak and spineless when Rome needed a decisive commander.

Valerian and Gallienus - Utterly failed to hold the empire together, got the teenaged Valerian II killed, and then did exactly the same with Saloninus.

Carinus - I think he was the Crisis emperor alluded to earlier. Said to have been a tyrant and a womanizer, marrying a total of 9 wives concurrently, in addition to countless mistresses. Granted, Diocletian ordered a damnatio memoriae against him, so all that survives is a smear campaign.

Constantine's boys - All power hungry, corrupt, and they conspired to kill their own family to consolidate power, before turning on each other.

The entire Theodosian dynasty - Unlimited power plus religious zealotism led to the extinction of Roman culture and set the stage for the dark ages. In particular, Honorius was emperor when Rome was sacked for the first time since the Republican days. When his messenger frantically shouted "Roma has perished!" Honorius was overtaken by a fit of grief. Grief turned to relief when he learned that his favorite chicken, Roma, was alive and well, and he had been bothered with news about the city of the same name.

After that, all the emperors were weak and controlled either by advisors, or entirely puppets to the Goths.

See, I'm not so sure about Domitian. He gets a bad rap because he stepped all over the Senate, was brutally intolerant of corruption, and was (justifiably) paranoid of attempts on his life.

As an emperor, he was highly pious, generous, and quite forward-minded. He repaired all of the damage dealt to Rome during the great fires and the civil war, initiated and finished massive building projects, and solidified the borders of the empire quite effectively.

I can't argue that he was a tyrant, but his actions were for the betterment of Rome, not personal glory or outright debauchery. He just didn't like people being in his way.