Meet the “grossly underappreciated” Roman emperor who became the enemy of the ancient world

The moral map of the Roman empire might seem fairly simple. There were good emperors, who governed wisely and brought stability, and there were bad emperors, whose tenures dissolved into cruelty and paranoia.

Nero and Caligula are the names most firmly and famously in the latter category – but Domitian, who ruled from AD 81 to 96, is often considered not far behind.

But according to historian Edward J Watts our certainty about the flaws of these ‘worst’ Roman emperors rests on shaky foundations.

And as for Domitian? “He is grossly underappreciated,” says Watts, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast.

How ancient Roman history was written

Most surviving narratives of the early Roman emperors who followed Julius Caesar were written decades after the events they describe. Their authors were members of Rome’s senatorial and literary elite, who were deeply invested in the dynamics and mechanics of power.

What they were not, Watts asserts, were neutral observers.

Among the most influential was Suetonius, who Watts describes as “an incredibly gifted biographer”. His account The Twelve Caesars remains one of the most widely read accounts of imperial Rome. It gives us biographies of Julius Caesar, and then the next 11 emperors.

Why end there? The answers, says Watts, is “because the last of them is the emperor Domitian”.

• Read more | Long before the ancient Roman empire, a rival superpower looked set for supremacy

The narrative arc culminates in Domitian’s reign as emperor. He is presented as the endpoint of Rome’s moral and political decline. His assassination is framed as a cleansing restoration, clearing the way for a new and better order to take root.

That framing shaped how later generations understood both Domitian and the nature of imperial power itself, says Watts.

Caesar: Death of a Dictator

Member exclusive | On the Ides of March 44 BC, the most famous Roman in history was murdered. Julius Caesar's assassination transformed Rome forever, and the image of his bloody toga has haunted monarchs and tyrants ever since.

Listen to all episodes now

Domitian and the Senate

Domitian was the third and final member of the Flavian dynasty of Roman emperors, beginning with Vespasian in AD 69. He was succeeded by his son Titus in AD 79, who in turn was succeeded by second son Domitian in AD 81.

Unlike earlier emperors who attempted to maintain a display of senatorial partnership, Domitian ruled as an open and unapologetic autocrat.

“Domitian was, I think, a wonderfully underappreciated figure,” says Watts. “Because what Domitian does is he finds talented people like Suetonius, who are bouncing around at the very lowest levels of Roman elite life, and he turbocharges them.

“He had a difficult relationship with the Roman Senate, and he wanted new people in positions of power whom he knew he could trust.”

By promoting capable administrators without deep senatorial pedigrees, Domitian weakened the traditional aristocracy’s grip on the state. From a practical standpoint, the policy worked. Under Domitian, Rome’s imperial financial and administrative efforts were stabilised, and the empire avoided civil war for 15 years – a considerable achievement by Roman standards.

From the Senate’s perspective, however, this circumvention was intolerable and created a deep resentment.

Domitian’s assassination, and the Roman art of political survival

Domitian was assassinated in AD 96 by a palace conspiracy that included his chamberlain, Parthenius, and his wife, Domitia Longina.

“The new regime that comes in disavows Domitian and calls him a tyrant,” says Watts.

That denunciation placed prominent figures who had flourished under Domitian in an awkward position. Writers such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger had built careers under Domitian’s rule, benefiting from a system that was now being denounced.

“And all of these people, including Suetonius, but also Tacitus, and also Pliny, scramble to figure out how they, who benefited from their close relationship with Domitian, can now find a place for themselves in this new regime,” says Watts.

“And so they turn on Domitian really, really aggressively. They write these histories of the emperors before the new regime as tyrants.”

Condemning Domitian served two purposes: it legitimised the new order and distanced its beneficiaries from the fallen emperor.

Creating Rome’s canonical villains

“Suetonius’s imperial biography explicitly goes through the succession and ends with Domitian as this horrible figure,” says Watts.

“He also does a tremendous number on Caligula, and on Nero as well. That’s where these legendary ‘terrible emperors’ get their initial reputations.”

But Watts argues that not all of these emperors were equally bad – if bad at all. Aside from Caligula.

“I have tried really hard to redeem Caligula,” Watts admits. “I don’t think that can be done.”

Caligula came to power in AD 37 and, according to multiple hostile sources, rapidly descended into paranoia.

“He gets very sick a few months into his reign,” Watts explains. “He believes he was poisoned, and he becomes extremely paranoid.”

The consistency of accounts describing arbitrary violence and psychological instability make it difficult to dismiss Caligula’s reputation as mere propaganda.

“I don’t think there’s any way to rationalise what he’s doing,” Watts says.

• Read more | If ancient Romans didn't understand calories, how was their theory of nutrition so accurate?

Watts paints Nero, however, as a more nuanced case.

“I think Nero is complicated,” Watts says.

Early in his reign, Nero pursued popular reforms and cultivated public support. But his ambitions outpaced his abilities. “He had ideas that made sense; he was just too incompetent and foolish to execute them.”

Over time, his rule became increasingly violent and erratic, culminating in acts – such as the murder of his mother and brutal reprisals against perceived enemies – that hardened his reputation. “He was very vicious,” Watts says.

Conversely, Domitian was effective in executing his wishes, but he was also demanding and deeply suspicious of opposition. “With Domitian, I think he just gets a bad rap,” Watts says.

“I think the political circumstances under which Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny are all writing mean that they almost by necessity are going to give him the worst possible reputation they can.”

Edward J Watts was speaking to Spencer Mizen on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.