Honorius was neither good nor bad. He was very young (he became emperor when he was 11) and had to face the begging of the disintegration of the western part of the Roman Empire. He spent his reign dealing with military emergencies. His general Stilicho fended of two attempted invasion of Italy. Then he was persuaded by opponents Stilicho, that was he plotting against him and backed a conspiracy against him and ordered his arrest and execution. He also mishandled negotiations with Alaric, the king of the Visigoths who then besieged Rome three times and on the third occasion he sacked it. The Visigoths then moved to south-western France. When he was 23 there was an invasion of Gaul by three Germanic peoples (the Vandals, Alans and Sueves) who then moved to Spain. There were also two usurpations in Gaul which were defeated by a new general, Constantius, whom he made co-emperor as Constantius III. Honorius also granted south-western France to the Visigoths as they were Roman allies.
The first emperor of Rome was Augustus Caesar (27 BC - 14 AD). Theodosius (374 - 395) was the last emperor who ruled the united Roman empire. Aftr his death, the West went to Honorius and the East to Arcadius, his sons.
I think that he was a good emperor because unlike some other emperors he didn't start off nice then turn bad. He was always for the people. Rome reached its extent when he was ruling. And he didn't force poor people to pay taxes For more info visit Wikipedia
Vespasian was a good emperor. He is sometimes referred to as "the man who saved Rome". The treasury was depleted when he came into power due to Nero's extravagance and the previous civil war. Vespasian, consequently, was forced to tax just about everything--even urine. Fortunately for Rome, Titus was able to conquer Jerusalem and bring back the temple treasure to enrich the Roman state. After this Vespasian was able to embark on his building program of his temple and the Colosseum.
The Christian emperor, Honorius, banned gladiator fights in Rome; the last one took place on January 1, 404 CE. He banned them because a monk, Telemachus, tried to stop a gladiator fight in Rome and was stoned to death by the crowd. Honorius was moved by the monk's martyrdom and banned the competitions. However, gladiatorial competitions had significantly decreased in popularity after Constantine I barred forcing professed Christians as gladiators in 325 CE and after Theodosius (Honorius' father) declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 393 CE.
That's a hard question to answer. The aristocrats hated him, and most of our history about him comes from aristocratic sources. He did many negative and bad things, but he had reasons for most of them. Because he acted extremely in certain circumstances, he is labeled as a bad emperor. However there was another side to Nero; he was inventive and generous, he was a builder and innovator. While he outraged the aristocrats, the common people loved him. For five years after his death, the common people piled his grave with flowers. Twenty years after his death an impostor in Parthia claimed to be Nero and raised an army on Nero's popularity. It stands to reason that a person who still had prestige twenty years after his death could not have been all bad.
Honorius, who was the Western Roman Emperor from 395 to 423 AD, would have likely spoken Latin as it was the official language of the Roman Empire at that time.
he was a good emperor
The Gladiatorial games and Gladiator history ended during the reign of the Emperor Honorius.
venice
Yes - he had a cockerel called Roma.
He wasn't an emperor.
terrible.
he was good and bad
Hirohito was a good Emperor that made bad desions in his life
He was no king at all, but emperor.
Honorius of Kent died in 1210.
Honorius Augustodunensis died in 1151.