Talk:List of Roman emperors

Sources List for discussions

Title	Type	Date	Author	Start	End	Excerpts/notes related to end of the Roman Emperors/Roman Empire
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire	Book	1776	Edward Gibbon	Augustus	Constantine XI	"The entire series of Roman Emperors, from the first of the Cesars to the last of the Constantines, extends above fifteen hundred years: and the term of dominion unbroken by foreign conquest, surpasses the measure of ancient monarchies; the Assyrians or Medes, the successors of Cyrus, or those of Alexander." See also the wikipedia article Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
A History of the Roman Emperors	Book	1825	Charles Abraham Elton	Augustus (28 BC)	Constantine XI (1453)	"Chronological List of Emperors"
A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D) Volume 2	Book	2015 (first published in 1889)	J. D. Bury	Augustus	1453	From the description: "Arguing for the underlying continuity of the Roman empire from the time of Augustus until 1453, Bury nevertheless begins his account in the year in which, on the death of Theodosius I, the empire was divided into eastern and western parts, and Constantinople began to take on the metropolitan role formerly held by Rome." Prefaced by a discussion of the terminology that preserves "Roman Empire" until 1453, criticizes Gibbon for the idea of a "Fall of the Western Roman Empire", refers to the phrase "Byzantine Empire" as "dangerous" and "highly objectionable, because [it] ... tend[s] to obscure an important fact and perpetuate a serious error", opines that the idea of Eastern and Western empires in Late Antiquity before 476 "both incorrect in itself and leads to a further confusion", reserves Eastern Roman Empire for the period after Charlemagne only, says that "No one talks about two Roman Empires in the days of Constantius and Constans; yet the relation of Arcadius and Honorius, the relation of Theodosius II and Valentinian III, the relation of Leo I and Anthemius, were exactly the same as the political relation which existed between the sons of Constantine", continues with "The resignation of Romulus Augustulus did not even shake the Roman Empire, far less did it cause an Empire to fall", and concludes that "it will be probably long time yet before the inveterate error of assigning a wrong importance to the year 476 A.D. has been finally eradicated."
Greece Under the Romans	Book	1907	George Finlay	Augustus	1204	From the preface: "1. The first of these periods comprises the history of Greece under the Roman government." [...] "The predominant feelings of Roman influences and prejudices in the Eastern Empire terminates with the accession of Leo the Isaurian, who gave the administration at Constantinople a new character. 2. The second period embraces the history of the Eastern Roman Empire in its new form, under its conventional title of the Byzantine Empire." [...] "Byzantine history extends from the accession of Leo the Isaurian, in the year 716, to the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. 3. After the destruction of the Eastern Roman Empire, Greek history diverges into many channels." [...] "After the lapse of less than sixty years, they recovered possession of Constantinople; but though the government they exercised retained the proud title of the Roman Empire, it was only a degenerate representative even of the Byzantine state. This third period is characterised as the Greek Empire of Constantinople. Its feeble existance was terminated by the Othoman Turks at the taking of Constantinople in 1453."
The Cambridge Medieval History Volumes 1-5	Book	1911-1936	Henry Melvill Gwatkin, Mary Bateson, G.T. Lapsley, and James Pounder Whitney	Augustus	1453	"With the loss of the Western provinces, cause by the expansion of the Germanic peoples, the ancient Roman Empire persisted only in the East. Until it finally succumbed to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, this Later Roman Empire - this Greek or Byzantine Empire - was the true Roman Empire, its Emperors being the legitimate successors of Augustus in an unbroken line of continuity;"
The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Volume I, The Later Roman Empire to the Twelfth Century	Book	1960	C. W. Previté-Orton	Augustus (28 BC)	Leo III The Isaurian (717-740)	"The reign of Leo III 'The Isaurian' (717-40) marks the consummation of a rapid change in the Eastern Roman Empire which had been going on for a hundred years. It was then that the Empire fully entered on its Byzantine period, Greek in speech, deeply orientalized, with Christianity ingrained in its thought and ethos. This Greek speech and mentality did not obliterate its inheritance from the older Roman phase of the Empire: its inhabitants thought of themselves as Romans ('Ρωμαίοι)--to the Moslems their land was Rum; their official language was tinged with borrowed Latin words; their institutions, bureaucracy, army and navy, law and finance were developments from the Roman State. The Basileus was the true successor of the Caesars; his titles of Autocrat and Sebastos were old translations of Imperator and Augustus, and though a despot, with power to associate his colleague and heir, he was on a vacancy still nominally elected by the Senate of New Rome (Constantinople) and acclaimed before or afterwards by his troops."
The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Volume II, The Twelfth Century to the Renaissance	Book	1960	C. W. Previté-Orton	Diocletian (284)	476	The Appendices include separate lists on subsequent pages: "(1) Roman Emperors (284-476);" which includes parallel lists labeled "In the East" and "In the West" after 394, and "(2) Byzantine Emperors (from 491)" which ends in 1204 and then includes lists labeled "Latin Emperors" from 1204 to 1261, "Emperors at Nicaea" from 1206 to 1261, and "Emperors at Constantinople" from 1261 to 1453.
The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume II, c.700-c.900	Book	1995	Rosamond McKitterick			"Appendix: genealogical tables" includes "Table 12: Byzantine Rulers c.700-c.900" on page 895 that includes "I Heraclians", "II Syrians", and "III Amorians" genealogist tables/lists of Byzantine emperors from Heraclius to Michael III.
The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 BC-AD 476	Book	1997	Michael Grant	31 BC	AD 476	Subtitle of the book: "the Rulers of Imperial Rome, 31 BC-AD 476"
From Rome to Byzantium: The fifth century AD	Book	1998	Michael Grant	Augustus (31 BC)	Anastasius I (518)	Subtitle of the book: "The fifth century AD".
The Oxford Illustrated History of the Roman World	Book	2001	John Boardman, Jasper Griffin, Oswyn Murray		1453	"The Late Empire" [...] "1453 Conquest of Constantinople by the Turks and end of the Eastern Roman Empire"
Who's who in the Roman World	Book	2002	John Hazel	Augustus (27 BC)	Jovian (364)	"Appendix II: List of the Roman Emperors"
The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook	Book	2002	Barbara Levick	Octavian (31 BC)	M. Aurelius Carinus (285)	Description: "This book reveals how an empire that stretched from Glasgow to Aswan in Egypt could be ruled from a single city and still survive more than a thousand years."
The Immortal Emperor: The Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans	Book	2002	Donald M. Nicol	Augustus	Constantine XI	The subtitle of the book: "Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans". From the preface: "Constantine Palaiologos was the last emperor of Constantinople, the New Rome. He was killed defending his city against the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The Turkish conquest completed the transformation of the Christian Byzantine Empire into the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Constantine's death marked the end of an institution that traced its origins back to the reign of Constantine the Great in the fourth century, or indeed back to Augustus, the first Roman Emperor."
The Oxford History of Byzantium	Book	2002	Cyril Mango	Augustus	Constantine XI	"Byzantium, then, is a term of convenience when it is not a term of inconvenience. On any reasonable definition Byzantium must be seen as the direct continuation of the Roman empire in the eastern half of the Mediterranean basin, i.e. that part of the Roman Empire that was Hellenistic in its culture and language. Being a continuation, it had no beginning, although a number of symbolic dates have been advanced as marking that elusive birthday: the accession of Dioclecian (AD 284), the foundation of Constantinople (324) or its ceremonial inauguration (330), the adoption of Christianity as the all but exclusive religion of the empire (c.380), the division of the empire into separately ruled eastern and western halves (395), the abolition of the western empire (476), even the accession of Leo III (716), the last being still enshrined in The Cambridge Medieval History. To all of these dates more or less cogent objections have been raised. That, however, does not solve a problem that probably owes more to a feeling than to the kind of 'objective' criteria that are supposed to underpin historical periodization."
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Roman Empire	Book	2002	Eric Nelson	Augustus	1453	Chapter 1 includes a subsection called "The Byzantine Period (565-1453)", which states "People don't often think of the Byzantine culture as 'Roman'. Greek, not Latin, was the language of the realm and the Orthodox Church developed apart from the Latin Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the culture we know as Byzantine was the continuation of the eastern Roman Empire and saw itself in that light. Citizens called themselves Romaioi (Romans) and recognized their emperor as the legitimate Roman emperor in the 'New Rome', Constantinople."
Metropolitan Museum of Art	Website	October 2004	Department of Greek and Roman Art	Augustus (27 BC)	Anastasius I (518)	Titled "List of Rulers of the Roman Empire". It includes sections labeled "Eastern Roman Empire", and "Eastern Roman Empire (after death of Jovian)".
A Pocket Dictionary of Roman Emperors	Book	2006	Paul Roberts	Augustus (27 BC)	Romulus Augustulus (476)	From page 48: "German kings ruled Italy and the remains of the western empire withered away. The only emperor now was in Constantinople, the capital of the eastern (Byzantine) empire, which lasted until AD 1453."
A History of the Later Roman Empire, AD 284-641: The Transformation of the Ancient World	Book	2006	Stephen Mitchell	Diocletian	Heraclius	From the description: "This book presents a historical study of the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity from the accession of the emperor Diocletian 284 to the death of the emperor Heraclius in 641."
How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower	Book	2009	Adrian Keith Goldsworthy	Augustus	fifteenth century	"Rome's fall is memorable because its empire lasted for so long -- more than five hundred years after Caesars death in Italy and the western provinces, and three times as long in the east, where emperors would rule from Constantinople until the fifteenth century." [...] "Similarly I have made no real use of the modern terms 'Byzantium' and 'Byzantine', and the emperors who ruled from Constantinople are referred to as Roman even when they no longer controlled Italy and Rome itself. This was how they knew themselves." [...] "The aim of this study is to look more closely at both the internal and external problems faced by the Roman Empire. It will begin, as Gibbon did, in the year 180 when the empire still appeared to be in its heyday, before moving on to trace the descent into the chaos of the middle of the third century. Then we will examine the rebuilt empire of Diocletian and Constantine, the move towards division into an eastern and western half in the fourth century and the collapse of the west in the fifth. It will end with the abortive effort of the Eastern Empire to recapture the lost territories in the sixth century. Gibbon went much further, continuing to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in the fifteenth century. That is a fascinating story in its own right, but it is too great a one to be dealt with adequately here. By the end of the sixth century the world was profoundly and permanently different from our starting point. The Eastern Roman Empire was strong, but no longer possessed the overwhelming might and dominance of the united Roman Empire. This book is about how this came about." [...] "There is a bitter irony that he should be named Romulus after Rome's mythical founder and nicknamed Augustus after the first emperor Augustus."
Ancient History Encyclopedia	Website	accessed 2020	founded in 2009 by Jan van der Crabben	Augustus (27 BC)	Constantine I (337)	Titled "Roman Emperor Timeline" and ends with Constantine. Clicking on the link to "Roman Emperor", it starts "Roman emperors ruled over the Imperial Roman Empire starting with Augustus from 27 BCE and continuing in the Western Roman Empire until the late 5th century CE and in the Eastern Roman Empire up to the mid-15th century CE."
The Complete Roman Emperor: Imperial Life at Court and on Campaign	Book	2010	Michael Sommer	Augustus	Romulus Augustulus	From the book description: "The eighty-five emperors who ruled Rome for five centuries are among the most famous and notorious leaders in history."
The Ruin of the Roman Empire	Book	2011	James J O'Donnell	Augustus (31 BC)	Heraclius (641)	"A simplified table. For fuller information, see the website De Imperatoribus Romanis (http://www.roman-emperors.org), in which this is based."
From Rome to Byzantium AD 363 to 565: The Transformation of Ancient Rome	Book	2013	A. D. Lee	Constantine I (306)	Heraclius (641)	"Roman emperors during late antiquity".
Emperors of Rome: The Story of Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the Last Emperor	Book	2016	David Potter	Augustus (29 BC)	Romulus Augustulus (476)	Chapter title: "Final Decline and Fall: The collapse of the Western Empire (AD 411-476)".
The Byzantine Empire 717-1453	Book	2018	George Finlay	Leo the Isaurian	Constantine XI	"The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised to mark the changes effected in the government, after the extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of ancient Rome. The social conditions of the inhabitants of the Eastern Empire had already undergone a considerable change during the century which elapsed from the accession of Heraclius to that of Leo, from the influence of causes to be noticed in the following pages; and this change in society created a new phase in the Roman empire. The gradual process of this change has led some writers to date the commencement of the Byzantine Empire as the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius, and others to descend so late as the times of Maurice and Heraclius. But as the Byzantine Empire was only a continuation of the Roman government under a reformed system, it seems most correct to date its commencement from the period when the new social and political modifications produced a visible effect on the fate of the Eastern Empire. This period is marked by the accession of Leo the Isaurian."
The Imperial Families of Ancient Rome	Book	2019	Maxwell Craven	Julius Caesar (49 BC)	Maurice (and Theodosius) (602)	From Contents: "VIII The Eastern Empire to 602"; From the Preface: "To understand how this might work in the context of the emperors of Rome from the triumph of Julius Caesar in 49BC to the death (say) of Mauricius (commonly Maurice) in 602, , it is necessary to provide, in the form of an introduction, how the system arose and how it worked."; From the Introduction: "The Roman Empire lasted an astonishingly long time, in the west five centuries, with almost a further millennium in the east, falling after two centuries of terminal decline to the Moslem Ottoman Turks in 1453."
Basileus: History of the Byzantine Emperors 284–1453	Book	2019	Weston Barnes	Diocletian (284)	Constantine XI Paleologus Dragases (1453)	Subtitle of the book: "History of the Byzantine Emperors 284–1453".
Encyclopaedia Britannica	Website	accessed 2020	Naomi Blumberg	Augustus (31 BC)	Zeno (491)	Titled "List of Roman emperors" and ends with Zeno.
ostia-antica.org	Website	accessed 2020		Augustus (27 BC)	Maurice (602)	The list is divided into two sections, labeled "Emperors from Augustus to Constantine" and "Emperors from Diocletian to Romulus" (but which also includes emperors up to Maurice).
Livius	Website	accessed 2020	Jona Lendering	Julius Caesar(48 BC)	Constans II (668)	The "List of Byzantine Emperors" page is presented as a subcategory of the "List of Roman Emperors" page.
De Imperatorobus Romanis	Website	Updated: 25 February 2020	Richard D. Weigel, and others	Augustus (31 BC)	Constantine XI (1453)	List title: "The Imperial Index: The Rulers of the Roman Empire From Augustus to Constantine XI Palaeologus". From the homepage: "DIR is an on-line encyclopedia on the rulers of the Roman empire from Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) to Constantine XI Palaeologus (1449-1453). The encyclopedia consists of (1) an index of all the emperors who ruled during the empire's 1500 years, (2) a growing number of biographical essays on the individual emperors, (3) family trees ("stemmata") of important imperial dynasties, (4) an index of significant battles in the empire's history, (5) a growing number of capsule descriptions and maps of these battles, and (6) maps of the empire at different times. Wherever possible, these materials are cross-referenced by live links. These contents are supplemented by an ancient and medieval atlas, a link to a virtual catalog of Roman coins, and other recommended links to related sites. The contents of DIR have been prepared by scholars but are meant to be accessible to non-specialists as well. They have been peer-reviewed for quality and accuracy before publication on this site."

The Nicaean Empire did not exist...probably

Why in the notes does it say,

"the four emperors of Nicaea, who are often seen as the "legitimate" emperors during the interregnum of 1204–1261)"

The Roman Empire had, after the Fourth Crusade attack, lost some territory. That's it. As far as there being a Roman Empire, I can't imagine they called themselves Nicaean Empire ever, just Roman Empire/Romania from Augustus to Constantine XI. I'm not saying we should stop using Nicaean, we should think about whether we need to use the word, use it if we need to, but as far as legitimateness, those Roman Emperors were 100% legitimate (putting aside things like usurping/inheriting). Middle More Rider (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The term "Nicene Empire" is not used to delegitimize the emperors ruling from Nicaea, it is used because the #1 key to legitimacy as a Byzantine emperor was the control of Constantinople, which the Nicene emperors did not have. They are retroactively seen as legitimate by most historians today because their successor state retook the city but the rulers in Thessalonica and Trebizond had claims just as valid 1204–1261. All the successor states considered themselves to be the legitimate government of the Roman Empire and would have referred to themselves as such.

You could consider the Latin emperors as having the superior claim 1204–1261 but they are universally rejected as such today because of Catholicism and because their "empire" was effectively a foreign military occupation. Rheskouporis (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is not used to delegitimise them, but when the Latin occupation happened, those leaders of the unoccupied parts were all legitimate Roman Emperors, as you mentioned, so legitimate is a meaningless term, which if only refering to the Romans at Nicaea would be biased. Until it was sorted out after someone from the Empire took back Constantinople, that someone could have potentially been the Romans from Trebizond beating the Romans from Nicaea, and if anyone was most legitimate it could be claimed to be the Komnenos family at Trebizond, as they were descendants of Alexios I and the emperors down to Andronikos I in whose reign the throne was stolen from the family, but inheriting and usurping were both normal forms of gaining the throne, so not historically more legitimate. In the east before Constantinople the capital was Nicomedia, but no one was called a Nicomedian Emperor of the Nicomedian Empire, or legitimate Nicomedian Emperor. Nor in the west did anyone ruling from Ravenna have to be called legitimate or Ravennan Emperor.

Also, Constantinople itself, before it had built up any history, no one had define Constantine as legitimate, because he was not ruling from Rome, he is just considered as legitimate. That's a long answer for a small point! But, they just were, so no need to mention it.

Middle More Rider (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I would personally not include the emperors in Nicaea at all, because they (and their rivals) don't really qualify for any of the criteria established to determine "legitimacy". As mentioned before, any of them could have potentially recovered Constantionple, and had it not been for the fact that the city was recovered, all of them would be seen as mere claimants. Tintero21 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you would say that, Theodore I of Nicaea, Alexios I of Trebizond and Michael I of Epirus were all related to ancester Alexios I of Constantinople, all in that royal family, and Theodore I was married into the Angelos family of Constantinople and was an actual definite heir to the throne.

Middle More Rider (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they all had valid claims to the throne, but that’s not my point. They lacked control of Constantinople, which is really the only factor that distinguishes “usurpers” from “legitimate” emperors. Tintero21 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Laskaris dynasty (1205–1261)" section

The small-print "note" for the section "Laskaris dynasty (1205–1261)" currently says that "modern historians recognize the line of emperors of the Laskaris dynasty, reigning in Nicaea, as the legitimate Roman emperors during this period". This is ostensibly sourced to Treadgold (1997: 734). However, the statement is not supported by the source at all. What Treadgold is saying is that the emperors after the reconquest of Constantinople used regnal numbers implying that they considered their Nicaean ancestors as part of the line of Roman emperors, and that modern historians have "followed this tidy practice" as far as the naming of emperors is concerned. He is not saying anything about what modern historians consider as constituting a "legitimate" claim to succession, and he himself quite explicitly says that this naming practice "tends to distort events through hindsight" and that the Laskaris rulers as Nicaea were factually *not* successors of the pre-1205 emperors.

In any case, I'd be rather surprised if any modern historian considered it their business to make pronouncements about "legitimacy" of succession regarding historic rulers like this. "Legitimacy" was hardly a meaningful category for the contemporary Byzantines themselves, much less so for modern historiography.

This is independent of the question of whether nor not we want to include these names in the list – I'd probably tend towards removing them, as per Tintero21's arguments above, but if we keep the section, the note clearly needs to be changed, or we need a better source for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Page 911-923 of the new Kaldellis history. No mention of legitimacy, just a list that includes them as the senior emperors.

• Kaldellis, Anthony (2023-08-24). The New Roman Empire. Oxford University Press New York. ISBN 0-19-754932-2.

Biz (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

=

What about Pulcheria? She received the title of Augusta and reigned, is she not counted because she only substituted her brother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.174.135 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)