I see. How about the rest of the world? The Chinese and Sassanids seemed rather unimpressive as far as great rulers. The Gupta emperor was inferior to his predecessors.
The Chinese and Sassanid rulers might not have been impressive or great rulers, but their realms were large and powerful.
The Sassanid Kings of KIngs were Peroz I (459-484) and Balash (484-488).
The Chinese rulers were:
Northern Wei - Xiao Wen Di (471-499)
Liu Song - Hou Fei (473-477), described as an evil child, Shun (477-479), a child - Southern Qi - Gao (479-482), evil usurper, Wu (482-493).
King of Kings of Axum or Aksum - Ebana? Nezool or Nezana? Someone else?
Gupta Empire - Budhagupta (c.476-495).
Vakataka dynasty - Harishena of the Vatsagulma branch (r. c.475-500).
And there may have been a few other persons who claimed to be western Roman emperors in the period of 476-488.
Masties ruled the kingdom of Aures in North Africa from about 426-494, or from about 447-516, or possibly between other dates. An inscription claims that he ruled for 67 years as a
dux, and for 40 (or maybe 10) of those years as emperor of "Romans and Moors". Thus he may have claimed to be emperor from 454 or 484 to 494, or from 476 or 506 to 516, or for some other period that may included part or all of 476-488.
Aegidius was appointed Roman
magister militum of Roman Gaul and continued to rule a part of northern Gaul until 464, and his son Syagrius ruled until defeated by Clovis in 486. A century later Gregory of Tours refers to Syagrius as king of the Romans, which may mean that he claimed to be emperor. Or Syagrius might have been loyal to someone who claimed to be emperor.
It is possible that after Constantine III, the Roman usurper from Britain, was defeated in 411, the rulers of Britain used the imperial title claiming to be his successors. Procopius claimed that after Constantine III Britain was ruled by "tyrants", meaning usurpers of the imperial title, down to his time.
