Okay fellas, just remind me, who was simply the worst roman emperor

>>3343282
Constantine the "Great".

>>3343282
>who was simply the worst roman emperor in history

Francis II
He lost at Austerlitz and the Roman Empire thus ended

File: 1499245974952.jpg (22KB, 462x450px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 462x450px

Diocletian was responsible for killing the Western Empire. He damned it.

Memers will throw out shitty post-Diocletian emperors, mostly Honorius, as shittier ones, but it was ultimately Diocletian policies that set the West's already evident decline into full force.
>inb4 muh cabbages

>>3343301

>HOLY

>>3343303
The tetrarchy was clearly unsustainable, but otherwise he did a good job. He laid the foundation for feudalism by allowing farmers to pay taxes in produce, greatly reducing the size of administrative units while expanding the administration to reduce the power of individual Gentry, tying farmers to their land, and revoking any special privileges for latins. Feudalism was certainly a superior system than Rome during the crisis.

>>3343282
Mustafa Kamal Ataturk

>>3343326
>He laid the foundation for feudalism
I'm sure Odoacer appreciated the fragmentation of the Western Empire greatly

>>3343292
t. pagancuck

>>3343303
Also he persecuted and killed thousands of Christians for no reason.

>>3343301
But the Sultan of Rome stayed in power until 1922.

File: turkish consulate.jpg (84KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x370px

>>3343340
>>3343370
>the sultan called himself Kayser-i-Rum
>not even saying Rome properly

>>3343303
This is patently false

>>3343303
Kys retarded weeb

>>3343369
>implying this is bad
>implying those Jewish agents didn't deserve it

File: JulianApostate.jpg (58KB, 300x401px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 300x401px

>>3343363
>t. buttblasted jew

>>3343369
Yet his reign was invaluable for the Christianization of the Empire. By making the Emperor the Religious Authority of the Empire, he paved the way for Theodosius to make Christianity the Religion in the Empire

>>3343397
he was a literal larper

>>3343401
>muh larping
And yet he still managed to trigger the early Church so much they couldn't even counter his arguments.

>>3343358
Fragmentation of power is superior to a monopoly that creates constant paralyzing power struggles. Later emperor's complacency in the face of crisis was not diocletians fault.

>>3343415
>Fragmentation of power is superior to a monopoly that creates constant paralyzing power struggles
Not when you want to rally a large army. Also, separating the East from the West disallows the use of the rich Eastern Empire to support West from attack.

>>3343425
And allowed the east to survive for another thousand years, so there's that.

>>3343425
The East had its own enemies to fight, retard.

>>3343431
That was solely Constantine and Theodosius II. Without Constantinople and the Walls, Byzantium would have fallen at some point to the Goths, the Arabs, or the Bulgars, depending.
Diocletian has absolutely no credit there.

>>3343443
Diocletian's reforms created the bureaucracy that formed the administrative core of the Byzantine empire

>>3343432
Yes, but splitting it into 4 distinct Empires, as the idea went, was nonsense. When you do that, you instill jealousy or make it impossible to coordinate.
There should have been 4 Caesars and 1 overall Augustus, whose job was to make sure the Empire ran coherently.

The Reason Diocletian split the Empire was because it was under siege from all angles, and completely splitting them apart ruins the ability to cohesively push back from afflicted areas

>>3343397

>thou hast conquered, Galilean

:^)

>>3343451
That's very interesting, but Bureaucracy didn't save Byzantium

>>3343282
the romans were black

>>3343458
Each area needed imperial attention; this wasn't a new idea, Marcus Aurelius and Gallienus had both done similar things. He wasn't splitting it into distinct entities but increasing the number of people who could answer high priority questions.
>There should have been 4 Caesars and 1 overall Augustus, whose job was to make sure the Empire ran coherently.
Would've changed nothing, as the civil wars of the Tetrarchy were a result primarily of people who were excluded (Maxentius) being angry, not of a rivalry between the Emperors.
>completely splitting them apart
He didn't do this, laws passed in one area were still applicable in all other areas and armies could be raised across the empire

>>3343467
After Adrianople it essentially did

Augustus
Hadrian
Trajan
Justinian
Commodus

I mean probably commodus. No one else got their name forever associated with shit.

>>3343508
>who is Constantine V Corpronymos, literally "the shit-named"

>>3343502
>Justinian
>Bad
Pure meme. If not for the Plague, he'd have restored the Empire in full.
>>3343508
That's not where commode comes from

>>3343517
>he'd have restored the Empire in full

Justinian's attempt to reconquer the West was a complete and utter misallocation of resources (namely, Belisaurus) which only served to create a power vacuum for the Muslims and Lombards. If I recall correctly it also ruined the notion in place where the Germanic kingdoms of the former WRE still recognized the legitimacy of the East as Rome.

>>3343320
>"""ROMAN"""

>>3343282
Cummodus

>>3343282
>who was simply the worst roman emperor in history?

nobody ever picks him, but the worst was maximian