I've been working on a coin labeling system that uses numbers for emperors and letters for non-emperors. I started with some default emperor lists that I obtained from different sources, but as I learn the stories behind the individuals, it seems to me that there is inconsistency in how the designation is determined. Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus are the good examples (I assume that they are included on lists of emperors just so that the moniker "Year of the Five Emperors" makes sense): -Niger proclaimed himself emperor and was supported by some eastern provinces, but this doesn't differentiate him from a number of other people that are simply called "usurpers". -Albinus is less clear cut. He was given the title of "Caesar" by Severus, but prior to Diocletian this simply meant "heir", which doesn't differentiate him from a number of other people that were labeled as such and never reached the top. He was assumed to be in control of a significant portion of the western part of the Empire for a while though, so maybe that makes a difference. He also proclaimed himself emperor twice, but again, that just makes him a failed usurper. Additional examples include Valerius Valens and Martinian who were given the title of Augustus by Licinius in exchange for their support in his civil wars against Constantine I. This makes them legitimate emperors in a way, but considering that Licinius was clearly junior to Constantine, and that these two men were executed by the actual emperors upon losing the wars, it isn't so clear cut in my mind. I can see how a delineation between emperors and non-emperors can never really be definitive. You'd have to use a metric like "recognized by the Senate", but often times the Praetorian Guard made the determination or the position was taken by force, whereby the Senate had no choice but to play along. Is there a method of delineating that I'm missing? I'd like to finalize my numbering system so that I do not have to modify it in the future. What do you guys think of the examples given above, emperors or no? What are other examples where you feel that the distinction is debatable?
I think the easiest thing to do is to refer to them as Augustii and Caesars. If they proclaimed themselves Augustus and someone took the time to put that on a coin 2,000 years ago, then they had enough friends to be that... for a short while at least. There were plenty of imperators before Caesar. It was just a military title and didn't mean what we use it for today.
I think anyone who proclaimed himself emperor was an emperor, at least to his legions. Many usurpers called themselves Augustus including the almost-successful Aemilian, who issued standard Roman coins for a short while. The list of pretenders goes on and on - Pacatianus, Regalianus, Ingenuus, Domitius Domitianus, etc. One could say Severus and Maximinus Thrax also were pretenders, the distinction being is that they were able to press their claims to the throne successfully instead of losing out to rivals during the pitched battles between candidates. Fake it til you make it.
If a Roman coin exists listing him as Augustus, then I believe the baseline has to be considered a ruler. However, if its a small territory, be it Alexandria, Gaul, etc I would call him a usurper. I would probably label PN a usurper IMHO if I had to make such a call, along with all of the Gallic empire, etc. To me they had to control a "normal" amount of the empire under the current system to be the "emperor". PN does not qualify because back then the empire was not split. If he controlled what he controlled 200 years later, I might label him an emperor but at that time the empire was regularly split in half. PN, and many in eras where the emperor died and the army was in revolt, probably has the strongest case of any I can think of being labeled and emperor versus usurper, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Aemilian is actually another good example of what I'm talking about. His story is not much different than the stories of the other people that you listed, however, the difference is that he consistently appears on lists of "Roman Emperors" whereas the others do not. Is there some critical threshold that Aemilian crossed that qualifies him for the list? Or is it all arbitrary and just a matter of degrees and personal opinion? True, the list is long where the distinction between usurper and emperor was determined by who was the last man standing. But, Severus and Thrax ruled for years and were generally understood by the populous and governing bodies to be the emperor over that time. This can't really be said for Thrax's "successor" Gordian I, and especially his son Gordian II. They consistently appear on lists of emperors, but they were just a blip on the radar while revolting against Thrax and being defeated/dying 3 weeks later. Again, unless they crossed some threshold that would separate them from all the others, then I don't understand why they make the lists.
In the case of the Gordians their revolt was quickly supported by the Senate, and they started to issue coins from the Rome mint at lightning speed. Similarly, when they were defeated by Capellianus - Maximinus' governor of Numidia - the Senate feared that Thrax' would act with vengeance against them, so they appointed two of their members, Balbinus and Pupienus, to the Imperium and tasked them with the defense of Rome. Pupienus actually defeated Maximinus during his ill fated siege of Aquileia, where Maximinus' troops revolted and killed him. Balbinus and Pupienus ruled for only 3 months before they in turn were executed by the Praetorian Guard...
Your write up makes it clear that you believe the difference between a usurper and a 'real' emperor was success. Septimius Severus and Constantine I each named themselves Augustus but were able to have that claim ratified. Self proclaimed emperors who did not last long are now called Usurpers. Pescennius Niger had every bit as much 'right' to the job as Septimius unless you count his losing the war. The senate ratified Septimius unanimously after all the ones who had supported Pescennius died. That made SS legitimate by the rules then in place. I have asked before but seen no answer: Is there any evidence that Gordian I or II ever saw a coin of theirs or if any such coin was actually made during their lifetime as opposed to being made by supporters in Rome? Are there any hoards that include an elder Gordian but no Balbinus or Pupienus? What we 'know' includes a lot of assumptions, late or questionable sources. There is no such thing as a list of emperors that does not need to include a few footnotes.
It's not really a matter of belief, in a lot of cases success was literally the determining factor that made the distinction. Severus' status as having been an emperor is pretty firm, whereas Niger's is debatable. Like you said, they both started from the same place, the difference is that Severus won. In fact, the real difference is probably as mundane as Severus having had a starting point closer to Rome I asked the question because I was curious about how various lists of "emperors" were determined, because there tend to be people on the list that, for all that I can tell, are no different from others that are firmly categorized as failed usurpers. This led me to assume that there was some distinguishing factor (an official document, Senate confirmation, etc) that was used to draw the line. If so, then I wanted to know what that was. My "opinion" about what would make a "real" emperor would, I assume, align pretty closely with the opinions of others (might be a faulty assumption). Here are some things that, on their own, do not make a person an Emperor IMO: -Calling yourself an emperor -Having an extreme minority of the population call you an emperor -Being on a coin with a crown on your head -Being named co-emperor by dad when you are 10 years old then dying at 11 Here are some things that do make a person an Emperor IMO: -Having a strong majority of the Empire acknowledge the fact that you are emperor -Ruling long enough to have even made it to Rome in one piece -Have a leadership role in something other than fighting your rivals, like making decisions pertaining to taxation, building programs, law making, etc, etc If you apply these criteria, then the list gets whittled down quite a bit. It may not be technically correct based on certain criteria, but I feel that this type of list would be a better representation of the rulers that actually played the role. People would get a better feel for the actual history of the leadership if all the fluff and footnotes were removed.
Sorry, but footnotes and fluff is where real history lives. Almost nothing is the same as the other, and real history is really messy. This applies to everything really. Every single thing you ever learned in a textbook, except math, is at best mostly true. Real knowledge is found in nuances and footnotes. Is someone cannot accept this, then pick a list you agree with and use that. No one list can possibly ever be 100% correct, since the data is simply messy. Myself, I concentrate on the coins, because we collect coins. If its an issue commonly available, I consider it a Roman leader even if others might disagree. If it dies not exist or horribly rare, I just ignore it. If I owned a PN I would have it in the Roman box even though I know a large number of scholars would say he was a usurper.
You are absolutely correct, and I now see that I should have been a little more explicit with what I meant there. The things that I referred to as "fluff and footnotes" are just as important as everything else when it comes to general history, but they muddy the waters when talking about "leadership history" specifically. Anyway, I thought it might be a fun group exercise to put our cumulative knowledge and opinions towards whittling the list down to something that makes more sense, like a "List of Roman Emperors that were actually Emperors". But, that doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe I just tend to overthink things .
