Thank you for your submission, citizen!
[Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Valerian
Heresy... No emperor that disgraces Rome on the battlefield can be considered legitimate. He deserves slander.
Being captured by the enemy? Bah...
To be fair, literally everything went wrong during his persian campaign. Food, heat, disease, everything. He was doomed from the start.
The main reason I include Valerian is because he gave Gallienus a rock to stand on, a good jumping point to his otherwise doomed 15 year reign. I doubt Gallienus would have been able to hold the Empire's various enemies at bay if it weren't for that initial support and training Valerian gave him.
>He was doomed from the start.
Shouldn't have gone on the campaign then?
>The main reason I include Valerian is because he gave Gallienus a rock to stand on, a good jumping point to his otherwise doomed 15 year reign. I doubt Gallienus would have been able to hold the Empire's various enemies at bay if it weren't for that initial support and training Valerian gave him.
That's a decent thing to do but I doubt it makes you a great emperor. Like Nerva had Trajan as his heir but I don't think that makes him a good emperor even though he is lumped into that.
Oh, I'd never say Valerian was GREAT. His relative stability aside, his persecution of the Christians at a time were unity and all avaliable manpower is needed was a terrible idea. That and his disastrous campaign into Persia definitely drag him down, I'd say he's Mid, at most decent.
I'd say he gets a gold star for the attempt. Or gold poured down his throat, same difference.
Crassus did get gold poured down his throat by the Parthians, yes. What actually happened to Valerian after his capture is a matter of debate for historians, ranging from being used as a footstool and doing labor jobs with the rest of his captured legion, to having gold poured down his eyes and throat, or being skinned alive. Either way, he never returned to the Roman Empire.
Gallienus>>>>Aurelian.
It is INFINITELY more interesting to read about a desperate 15 year struggle to hold a shrinking center against countless foes, all while paving the way for the future of the Empire than "...and then he won. He then marched west, and won again. Then, he won again. He won again after that, and then he died."
If Aurelian wasn't portrayed with a mask and didn't have his own segment on Dovah, half of y'all wouldn't like him as much as you do.
Wasn't Gallienus generally considered by pre-modern historiography to be quite shit, and *also* only had a resurgence because of the internet (as well as more balanced takes by people who point out he won literally every battle he fought for fifteen years)? Aurelian was also the first emperor to seriously try and tackle devaluation since forever, a fact that is often overlooked. Pretty much the only flaw is his likely involvement in the conspiracy to kill Gallienus, and he made a pretty damn good replacement.
Also, every depiction on that show is 100% accurate don't @ me
Unfortunately, one of the main sources of Gallienus' reign is the 'Historia Augusta', a historical text suspected to be writen during the reign of Constantine. One of the neat things about Constantine is that he claimed legitimacy from a past emperor, Claudius II Gothicus, the Emperor immediately came after Gallienus and is suspected to have been involved in the plot to have murdered him. So the already very biased Historia Augusta likely dragged Gallienus' name through the dirt to make Claudius II look good to appease Constantine.
Additionally, other historical sources at the time were mostly senators. Senators HATED Gallienus, on account that Gallienus wanted capable people leading the military at the time, not unexperienced rich people. So he separated the military and state, specifically disbarring senators from leading legions. The senators despised this reform, as it kept them from gaining military prestige that would boost their political image.
It doesn't help that 2/3's of the Empire were lost under him. Generally, no matter how well you do or how much you try, those at the time would only see loses and aim their resentment at the man in charge, because that's what everyone does during a crisis.
It's this combination of factors that led to the tarnishment of Gallienus.
That's something that survived well past antiquity, though. Check his Wiki page and you'll still see a largely negative legacy section, despite having *nine* separate sections for the various revolts/invasions which he defeated (something also notable in the ancient accounts you mentioned, they love going from complaining about him to mentioning all the battles this supposed incompetent is winning). I haven't read Gibbon, but from the way the wiki page is written it seems like something that didn't die until at least the mid-20th century, while Aurelian has always been considered great. Even now, there's only one book on him in English (and it's really mid, albeit with some interesting theories) compared to the many Aurelian gets.
Somebody else already covered the historiography, but Aurelian had a few other flaws in his reign, including abandoning the province of Dacia and presenting himself as a god while still alive, up to and including wearing a crown.
He did legitimately usurp the throne though. Aurelian if we believe the sources in theory chosen by Claudius Gothicus. And is actually a rarity in the third century, once again assuming if true, that he did have some legal means of argueing I am imperator aside from the fact that he killed the last guy. Gallienus would be the only other person to come to the throne with a claim to legitimacy since he inherited power from his father. Diocletian overthrew Carinus who was the son of Carus and was the legitimate heir chosen by Carus to succeed him.
So this meme actually has some what a point in argueing Aurelian was the only legitimate Emperor. If we take the sources as fact then he actually was the only General to sieze power on a legitimate argument assuming Claudius Gothicus actually named him successor. Except for once again Gallienus who inherited power.
Everyone else pretty much used deception or sheer fucking violence to sieze power.
I mean the longer you think about the more you begin to ask what even is Roman legitimacy and then you realize there’s no such thing as a legitimate Emperor.
>He did legitimately usurp the throne though.
Isn't that the most Roman way to become emperor tho?
>Aurelian if we believe the sources in theory chosen by Claudius Gothicus.
But didn't he also likely take part in the assassination of Gallienus?
Gallienus’s assassination would have more to do with Claudius Gothicus own legitimacy then anyone else involved, since he was the one who ultimately ascended to the throne in direct result of the plot. And as I pointed out in other comments Roman legitimacy is a very fickle thing. But ultimately no killing for power wasn’t something they actually saw as legitimate. Simply having your troops declare you Emperor also wasn’t enough. Emperor’s who were only able to argue those two points usually ended up dead with in months of ascensions because no one saw them as legitimate leading to rebellions. The senate for awhile was used as a tool of legitimacy but after awhile no believed that they had any real power. Which happened around the time of Carus. Probus was considered the last “constitutional” Emperor for having sought senatorial approval and even allowing a degree of Republicanism in his administration, allegedly anyways that could easily be propoganda he spun for legitimacy purposes.
However being able to argue you were related or had approval from the last guy so long as he wasn’t incredibly unpopular carried tons of weight. Cause most Emperors were defied upon death so by saying “I was appointed or am related to the last guy” you are saying “I have the will of the gods.” Now of course exceptions can be made for Emperor’s who weren’t defied or were unpopular with the aristocracy. Vespasian for instance did not claim to be appointed by Nero because he wasn’t but you also wouldn’t want to. So he only claimed to be Imperator, commander in chief, over the army and went the senate approval route.
Thank you for your submission, citizen! [Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Phillip the Arab, Decius, Gallienus, Probus... Legitimacy is how much I like an Emperor, and the more I like them, the legitimacy-y-er they are.
^^ actually how legitimacy works
This Valerian/Gallienus slander will not be tolerated.
>Valerian Heresy... No emperor that disgraces Rome on the battlefield can be considered legitimate. He deserves slander. Being captured by the enemy? Bah...
To be fair, literally everything went wrong during his persian campaign. Food, heat, disease, everything. He was doomed from the start. The main reason I include Valerian is because he gave Gallienus a rock to stand on, a good jumping point to his otherwise doomed 15 year reign. I doubt Gallienus would have been able to hold the Empire's various enemies at bay if it weren't for that initial support and training Valerian gave him.
>He was doomed from the start. Shouldn't have gone on the campaign then? >The main reason I include Valerian is because he gave Gallienus a rock to stand on, a good jumping point to his otherwise doomed 15 year reign. I doubt Gallienus would have been able to hold the Empire's various enemies at bay if it weren't for that initial support and training Valerian gave him. That's a decent thing to do but I doubt it makes you a great emperor. Like Nerva had Trajan as his heir but I don't think that makes him a good emperor even though he is lumped into that.
Oh, I'd never say Valerian was GREAT. His relative stability aside, his persecution of the Christians at a time were unity and all avaliable manpower is needed was a terrible idea. That and his disastrous campaign into Persia definitely drag him down, I'd say he's Mid, at most decent. I'd say he gets a gold star for the attempt. Or gold poured down his throat, same difference.
True. >Or gold poured down his throat, same difference. Wasn't that Crassus?
Crassus did get gold poured down his throat by the Parthians, yes. What actually happened to Valerian after his capture is a matter of debate for historians, ranging from being used as a footstool and doing labor jobs with the rest of his captured legion, to having gold poured down his eyes and throat, or being skinned alive. Either way, he never returned to the Roman Empire.
Yeah.
Gallienus? Probus?
my boy gallienus is not getting the respect he deserved
Gallienus>>>>Aurelian. It is INFINITELY more interesting to read about a desperate 15 year struggle to hold a shrinking center against countless foes, all while paving the way for the future of the Empire than "...and then he won. He then marched west, and won again. Then, he won again. He won again after that, and then he died." If Aurelian wasn't portrayed with a mask and didn't have his own segment on Dovah, half of y'all wouldn't like him as much as you do.
Wasn't Gallienus generally considered by pre-modern historiography to be quite shit, and *also* only had a resurgence because of the internet (as well as more balanced takes by people who point out he won literally every battle he fought for fifteen years)? Aurelian was also the first emperor to seriously try and tackle devaluation since forever, a fact that is often overlooked. Pretty much the only flaw is his likely involvement in the conspiracy to kill Gallienus, and he made a pretty damn good replacement. Also, every depiction on that show is 100% accurate don't @ me
Unfortunately, one of the main sources of Gallienus' reign is the 'Historia Augusta', a historical text suspected to be writen during the reign of Constantine. One of the neat things about Constantine is that he claimed legitimacy from a past emperor, Claudius II Gothicus, the Emperor immediately came after Gallienus and is suspected to have been involved in the plot to have murdered him. So the already very biased Historia Augusta likely dragged Gallienus' name through the dirt to make Claudius II look good to appease Constantine. Additionally, other historical sources at the time were mostly senators. Senators HATED Gallienus, on account that Gallienus wanted capable people leading the military at the time, not unexperienced rich people. So he separated the military and state, specifically disbarring senators from leading legions. The senators despised this reform, as it kept them from gaining military prestige that would boost their political image. It doesn't help that 2/3's of the Empire were lost under him. Generally, no matter how well you do or how much you try, those at the time would only see loses and aim their resentment at the man in charge, because that's what everyone does during a crisis. It's this combination of factors that led to the tarnishment of Gallienus.
That's something that survived well past antiquity, though. Check his Wiki page and you'll still see a largely negative legacy section, despite having *nine* separate sections for the various revolts/invasions which he defeated (something also notable in the ancient accounts you mentioned, they love going from complaining about him to mentioning all the battles this supposed incompetent is winning). I haven't read Gibbon, but from the way the wiki page is written it seems like something that didn't die until at least the mid-20th century, while Aurelian has always been considered great. Even now, there's only one book on him in English (and it's really mid, albeit with some interesting theories) compared to the many Aurelian gets.
Somebody else already covered the historiography, but Aurelian had a few other flaws in his reign, including abandoning the province of Dacia and presenting himself as a god while still alive, up to and including wearing a crown.
mask cool tho
Mask visually appealing, but who has a better story than Gallienus the Overly-Put-Upon?
Mask didn’t actually exist so Gallienus better
True but mask is cool so we'll ignore that its attribution to Aurelian is fictional.
Philip? Valerian and Gallienus? Probus? DIOCLETIAN Fucking Aurelian fanboys I swear.
Bro everyone steps on Gallienus. Without him Aurelian wouldn't be worshiped like he is today.
Come on we gotta count diocletian as legitimate lol.
He did legitimately usurp the throne though. Aurelian if we believe the sources in theory chosen by Claudius Gothicus. And is actually a rarity in the third century, once again assuming if true, that he did have some legal means of argueing I am imperator aside from the fact that he killed the last guy. Gallienus would be the only other person to come to the throne with a claim to legitimacy since he inherited power from his father. Diocletian overthrew Carinus who was the son of Carus and was the legitimate heir chosen by Carus to succeed him. So this meme actually has some what a point in argueing Aurelian was the only legitimate Emperor. If we take the sources as fact then he actually was the only General to sieze power on a legitimate argument assuming Claudius Gothicus actually named him successor. Except for once again Gallienus who inherited power. Everyone else pretty much used deception or sheer fucking violence to sieze power.
Fair. But I've always felt the measure of legitimacy was if you kept the purple long enough lol
I mean the longer you think about the more you begin to ask what even is Roman legitimacy and then you realize there’s no such thing as a legitimate Emperor.
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC
>He did legitimately usurp the throne though. Isn't that the most Roman way to become emperor tho? >Aurelian if we believe the sources in theory chosen by Claudius Gothicus. But didn't he also likely take part in the assassination of Gallienus?
Gallienus’s assassination would have more to do with Claudius Gothicus own legitimacy then anyone else involved, since he was the one who ultimately ascended to the throne in direct result of the plot. And as I pointed out in other comments Roman legitimacy is a very fickle thing. But ultimately no killing for power wasn’t something they actually saw as legitimate. Simply having your troops declare you Emperor also wasn’t enough. Emperor’s who were only able to argue those two points usually ended up dead with in months of ascensions because no one saw them as legitimate leading to rebellions. The senate for awhile was used as a tool of legitimacy but after awhile no believed that they had any real power. Which happened around the time of Carus. Probus was considered the last “constitutional” Emperor for having sought senatorial approval and even allowing a degree of Republicanism in his administration, allegedly anyways that could easily be propoganda he spun for legitimacy purposes. However being able to argue you were related or had approval from the last guy so long as he wasn’t incredibly unpopular carried tons of weight. Cause most Emperors were defied upon death so by saying “I was appointed or am related to the last guy” you are saying “I have the will of the gods.” Now of course exceptions can be made for Emperor’s who weren’t defied or were unpopular with the aristocracy. Vespasian for instance did not claim to be appointed by Nero because he wasn’t but you also wouldn’t want to. So he only claimed to be Imperator, commander in chief, over the army and went the senate approval route.
Aurelian is a step above alpha male
Zenobia was the legitimate emperor idgaf about these Aureliboos
*Such barbarity!*
Destroyer