When discussing the worst Roman emperors, it is useful to contrast each of them with the classic high standard of emperorship— the so-called “Five Good Emperors.” For those who are unfamiliar with the term, the Five Good Emperors were a group of Roman Emperors who ruled consecutively in the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, who ruled Rome consecutively beginning with Nerva’s
appointment by the Senate in 96 CE and ending with the death of Marcus Aurelia
in 180 CE. We can trace this idea to Niccolò Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy, published in 1537, where he declaredthe reign of the Five Good Emperors a golden age not only for the Senate and
Rome’s elites, but for the vulgus, too— the common people.[1] According to Machiavelli, the Empire in this period functioned as a cohesive unit where virtuous emperors provided for the people, and the people in turn consented to being governed. He characterized all times outside of the Five Good Emperors as antithetical to the golden age over which they ruled— centuries when Rome was plagued by war, division, and corruption, precipitating the eventual disintegration of the Empire’s infrastructure and values.[2]
So, what in particular distinguishes these emperors andtheir era? While their deeds and traits as rulers differed, Machiavelli points to the unique, yet shared circumstances of their ascent to power: the Five Good Emperors appointed or adopted one another as heirs to the position based on merit. Virtually all of Rome’s other emperors either inherited the throne by blood or seized it in some other fashion. Machiavelli, who was fervently in favor of the Republic (during which Rome, prior to becoming an empire, was ruled through elective representation), used the example of the Five Good Emperors to illustrate how a leader chosen based on merit will be more virtuous and provide for his kingdom, whereas those who rule through nepotism or blood will only serve themselves.
While Machiavelli focuses on the Five Good Emperors as evidence for his theory, his ideas continue to vividly inform his analysis of the worst emperors of the early Empire. Take, for instance, Caligula, who inherited the title of Emperor through Tiberius’ will in 37 CE and became the third Roman Emperor. At just twenty-four years old, Caligula had little political or military experience at the time of his ascension. However, on his father’s side, he was the great-grandson of Mark Antony, the famed consul and general whose civil wars brought an end to the Republic; and, on his mother’s side, he was the great-grandson of Augustus, the first ruler of the Empire. This prestigious lineage lent the young ruler a privileged sense of birthright and credibility. In The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonius (d. after 122 CE), the great historian of the early imperial era, divided Caligula’s rule into two segments. He described the early half of his reign as relatively stately and balanced, if not a bit unorthodox. Suetonius commented on the second half of his rule, though, with the following line: “So much for Caligula as emperor, we must now tell of his career as a monster.”[3]
The latter half of Caligula’s rule has been the subject of morbid speculation for millennia, with the early works of Suetonius and other Roman historians offering wild tales of self-indulgence, brutality, and sadism. After Caligula declared his own apotheosis— his ascension from ruler to divine being— he reportedly enacted a series of bizarre laws, ordered the construction of lavish monuments and icons in his own image, exiled senators, friends, and family that he perceived to oppose him, and engaged in infidelity and acts of sadism, all while the success of the Empire’s military expansion stagnated, devolving into performative displays of power. Among the most colorful and infamous exploits recorded by Suetonius, Caligula attempted an invasion of Britain, only to stop at the English Channel and have his soldiers gather seashells from the sand as “plunder.”[4] He grew more erratic and paranoid by the day, murdering anyone he suspected of plotting against him.[5] Conemporary historians, unable to rationalize his actions, have often tried to diagnose his madness with a range of mental conditions that contributed to his decline. However, Caligula’s appointment, despite a glaring lack of qualifications, emphasizes Machiavelli’s point; not only were the rulers selected primarily on merit the most constructive, but the rulers selected primarily according to bloodline were the most destructive— even if these tendencies, as in the case of Caligula, proved to be latent.
Caligula was assassinated just three years into his rule andwas succeeded by his uncle, Claudius. It would not be long, though, before Rome was again plunged into crisis by another dynastic emperor: Nero, the nephew of Caligula. After marrying Nero’s mother, Claudius agreed to adopt Nero, leading to the latter’s inheritance of the imperial title in 54 CE. Like Caligula, Nero showed signs of promise during the infancy of his reign, promising to rule following Augustus’ principles and making offerings of goodwill[6] populus. He ruled under the careful eye of his mother, Agripina the Elder, who handled much of the “public and private” dealings alongside him at the beginning of his reign. Nevertheless, as Suetonius writes: “Though Nero degenerated from the good qualities of his ancestors, he yet reproduced the vices of each of them, as if transmitted to him by natural inheritance,”[7] Nero famously took an interest in the arts, becoming a patron of theater and an avid lyre player, with accounts claiming that he would have members of his guard carry his instruments around and that he would break out a mask and perform tragedies for guests. While an innocent hobby, his absorption in the arts became a medium through which he would, with his self-interest, gradually devolve into self-destruction.Suetonius describes Nero with overt contempt— focusing noton his acts as Emperor but the rumored “pranks” he would carry out while disguised, including beating innocent men on the streets, robbing stores, and committing adultery. When Nero’s mother began to chastise him openly, he stripped her of her honors and ousted her from the palace. Nero’s insatiable self-indulgence only grew, draining Rome’s treasury to build the “Domus Aurea,” a golden palace. Amidst mounting criticism, Nero sank to the level of Caligula, ordering the murders of those who disapproved of him or whom he disapproved of— allegedly, according to
Suetonius, even ordering the execution of his own mother. The Senate declared him a public enemy, causing the Praetorian Guard to abandon him; he subsequently took his own life in 68 CE, after fourteen years of rule.
We could, perhaps, contain the faults of Caligula and Nero to their shared bloodline and reject Machiavelli’s generalization that inheritance consistently produces unjust rulers. However, if we jump ahead in history to the next frequently cited “worst” emperor, we arrive at Commodus, the son who ended the streak of Five Good Emperors. Unlike his four predecessors, Marcus Aurelius, the last of the Five Good Emperors, had offspring, meaning the option of birthright succession was back on the table. In 177 CE, in a bid to stabilize the empire and prevent a succession crisis, Marcus Aurelius granted his biological son, Commodus, the title of emperor, breaking the adoptive precedent. However, despite Commodus being born into this noble bloodline, and being raised as a priest and a royal, he conducted himself like “the hucksters who stroll from market to market” as the anonymous Historia Augusta (c. 4th Century) puts it, engaging in debauchery fueledby his privilege and arrogance.[8] Like the bad emperors before him, he erected monuments to himself (notably as Hercules) and spent lavishly with the empire’s funds, committed adulterous, perverted acts, and carried out murders which made him an enemy of the senate. In his final year of rule, he declared himself God-emperor and was then assassinated, fulfilling the prophecy of birthright rule and irrevocably shattering over eighty years of ruling stability in the Roman Empire.
While Caligula, Nero, and Commodus help us to understand the common symptoms of bad emperorship through these emperors— self-indulgence, corruption, and paranoia— they are certainly not the only ones throughout Rome’s long history of Emperorship. In considering why these few emperors were selected by Machiavelli and so many subsequent historians as the worst of the worst, we must consider the broader argument for which they are being used as evidence. In identifying The Five Good Emperors, Machiavelli attempts to highlight the benefits of a Republic, demonstrating that systems of government where the leader is appointed based on merit flourish, whereas those based on bloodline and inheritance suffer. Suetonius, while a helpful source on the upbringing and events of the emperors, leans into salaciousness and rumors for certain emperors which he clearly views as unfit. In attempting to determine whether or not these emperors had Rome’s best interests at heart or their own, historians are really injecting their views on whether they were fit to rule by their own metrics.
[1] Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Book X, trans. Ninian Hill Thompson, https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10827/pg10827-images.html Machiavelli writes: “And if he who has become prince in any State will but reflect, how, after Rome was made an empire, far greater praise was earned those emperors who lived within the laws, and worthily, than by those who lived in the contrary way, he will see that Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus and Marcus had no need of praetorian cohorts, or of countless legions to guard them, but were defended by their own good lives, the good-will of their subjects, and the attachment of the senate.”
[2] Machiavelli continues: “In like manner he will perceive in the case of Caligula, Nero, Vitellius, and ever so many more of those evil emperors, that all the armies of the east and of the west were of no avail to protect them from the enemies whom their bad and depraved lives raised up against them.” Discourses on Livy, Book X. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10827/pg10827-images.html
[3] Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars: The Life of Caligula,Chapter 22, trans. J. C. Rolfe,
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Caligula*.html
[4] Suetonius, Life of Caligula, Chapter 46
[5] Suetonius, Life of Caligula, Chapters 48-49
[6] Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars: The Life of Nero, Chapter 10, trans. J. C. Rolfe, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Nero*.html
[7] Suetonius, Life of Nero,Chapter 21
[8] Historia Augusta, Chapter 2, trans. David Magie, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Commodus*.html
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolò. Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius. Translated by Ninian Hill Thompson, Project Gutenberg, 2004, https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10827/pg10827-images.html. Book X.
Suetonius. The Lives of the Caesars: The Life of Caligula. Translated by J. C. Rolfe, Chapter 22, University of Chicago, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Caligula*.html.
Suetonius. The Lives of the Caesars: The Life of Caligula. Translated by J. C. Rolfe, Chapters 46, 48–49, University of Chicago, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Caligula*.html.
Suetonius. The Lives of the Caesars: The Life of Nero. Translated by J. C. Rolfe, Chapters 10, 21, University of Chicago, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Nero*.html.
Historia Augusta. “Life of Commodus,” Chapter 2. Translated by David Magie, University of Chicago, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Commodus*.html.
