*saves the west*

>>According to tradition, it depicts Heraclius (reign 610–641 AD); though this is most unlikely on historical and art-historical grounds. More likely subjects are Theodosius II (reign 408–450 AD), who may have had it erected in Ravenna in 439, Honorius (reign 393–423 AD), Valentinian I (r. 364–375), Marcian (r. 450–457), Justinian I (r. 527–565) and especially Leo I the Thracian (r. 457–474).

What did any of these guys do to "save" the West?

>>2662173
its clearly valentinian i, who managed to pull the west together and was the first to have a peacefully divided empire

Are there any good biographies of Valentinian and valens?

>>2663685

If you are interested in the primary sources then you should look at Ammianus Marcellinus.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/26*.html

Book 26 is where Valentinian comes into the picture. Hes a major hothead but I love him (I mean he died from an aneurysm by getting to angry).

>>2662173
Defended Christianity

>>2662194
Valentinian was shit.

North Africa and Britain broke with the Empire under him.

Compare him to Constantius II. Now that was a good Emperor.

>>2664019
he got both back lol

>>2664019

Wrong. Now kys

>>2664070
They should have never broken.He incompetantly managed both situations and was lucky that Papa Theodosius saved his ass.

>>2664080
Not an argument faggot

>>2664114
He was dealing with revolts in Gaul, Germania, and a usurper. He did very well given the circumstances

>>2664159
Half of those events were completely preventable and only occurred because Valentinian was a shit tier diplomat.

He was as good as a firefighter who starts his own fires.

>>2664315
The only real diplomatic mistake he made was failing to use the burgundians against the Alamanni, and even then he was fairly successful in driving them out of Gaul
Precopius's revolt, the Quadi's invasion on the Danube, the situation in Britain and the North African Crisis were things he had no part in creating

>>2664114

"In war, whether offensive or defensive, he was most skilful and careful, a veteran in the heat and dust of the battlefield. In council he was a foresighted persuader of what was right and a dissuader of wrong, most strict in examining all ranks of the military service. He wrote a neat hand, was an elegant painter and modeller, and an inventor of new kinds of arms. His memory was lively; so was his speech (although he spoke seldom), and he was vigorous therein, almost to the point of eloquence. He loved neatness, and enjoyed banquets that were choice but not extravagant."

>>2665836
I have a hard time believing he was eloquent in speech or had good handwriting

>>2665836

I've already posted the primary sources earlier. He also shit filings at Valentinian as well... If you don't want to read it and make your own conclusion then please leave