WI Marcus Aurelius picks another successor?

In 180 AD Emperor Marcus Aurelius died in Vindobona and was succeded by his son Commodus (who was kinda lunatic...:D)
This decision to designate his son Commodus as Emperor, put an end to the fortunate series of "adoptive emperors", was highly criticized by later historians since Commodus was a political and military outsider, as well as an extreme egotist with neurotic problems. For this reason, Marcus Aurelius' death is often held to have been the end of the Pax Romana. It is possible that he chose Commodus simply in the absence of other candidates, or as a result of the fear of succession issues and the possibility of civil war.
WI Marcus Aurelius (who was aware of his son's mental instability) disinherited Commodus and adopted someone better to succeed him continuing the line of the "Good Emperors"?
Any thoughts?

P.S. I was watching "Gladiator" last night and thats how i got this idea...:D:D
 
Were there any candidates with demonstrated ability that Marcus might have chosen?

I'd have to imagine that there will still be problems down the road, unless the system of adoptive succession can be fully implemented. I seem to remember that Thermopylae's Coronation of the Hun has an interesting meritocratic system in *Poland. To be stable in Rome, I'd have to imagine a system to designate the successor would be needed.

If continued, thought, it does preclude the mutliple succession crises of the third century. Without these, Rome might find its way clear to either maintain its military power intact to thwart barbarians or conquer the more troublesome tribes. At the very least, the extentsion of peace in the provinces may forestall temporarily some of the social transformations that tended to bring on the Dark Ages.

____________

Great Movie. My sister just decided to name our new dog Maximus because of it. Ironic, since right now he's only 3 pounds.
 
Marcus had spent many years defeating some Germanic tribes. When he died, he had just started to form the conquered lands into two new provinces: Marcomannia and Sarmatia. They'd include Bohemia, parts of Slovakia, Hungary beyond the Danube and Transsylvania. Commodus gave them up practically immediately. His other successor probably'd keep them. (But I can't tell whether they could pay enough taxes for Rome or become a money sink instead.) When the völkerwanderung starts, they might be lost too, but I think western Rome could survive for longer.
 
Well maybe the Praetorian Praefect Tarutenius Paternus who had just defeated the Quadi tribe...Or Tigidius Perrenis co-Prefect of the Praetorian Guard... Claudius Pompeianus (Lucilla's second husband) is an option too... Or Publius Julianus who was betrothed to Paternus's daughter and lead a conspiracy against Commodus after 182 AD... Pertinax Governor of Britain is a long shot too...
I think i can find many Generals and civil servants better than Commodus for Aurelius to adopt... but i ll have to consult my books...
 
I await the verdict on the most likely choice. If Marcus choses one though, what will the others do? Ally with Marcus' choice against Commodus or vice versa?

Also, is there any chance an Emperor might decide to retire before his death? With adoptive succession this might increase the likelihood that the Emperor's choice takes power peacefully. I seem to remember that the Emperors of Japan did this before the Tokugawa Shogunate.
 
I await the verdict on the most likely choice. If Marcus choses one though, what will the others do? Ally with Marcus' choice against Commodus or vice versa?

Also, is there any chance an Emperor might decide to retire before his death? With adoptive succession this might increase the likelihood that the Emperor's choice takes power peacefully. I seem to remember that the Emperors of Japan did this before the Tokugawa Shogunate.

No Emperor would retire in that era unless he wants to be found dead with a dagger in his back... The first Roman Emperor who retired was Diocletian after 125 years...
Adoption was the practice of the last 5 Emperors and was generally accepted by that time by the Army and the Senate... I dont know how Commodus would react in such a case though... He was as lunatic as Caligula...
 
No Emperor would retire in that era unless he wants to be found dead with a dagger in his back... The first Roman Emperor who retired was Diocletian after 125 years...
Adoption was the practice of the last 5 Emperors and was generally accepted by that time by the Army and the Senate... I dont know how Commodus would react in such a case though... He was as lunatic as Caligula...

Adoption was not a policy it was done through necessity. By chance the immediate previous emperors had no obvious male successor, although Hadrian was Trajan's closest male relative. As soon as an emperor had an obvious male heir, Commodus, the 'principle' of adoption was immediately abandonded.

The Army accepted it because the adopted successors were strong generals. The senate was irrelevent.

It is extremely likely that if Commodus was by-passed civil war would erupt. The only solution would be to have him killed and Marcus had no reason to do that. If he was as mad and bad as the senatorial historians suggest, I have little doubt that Marcus would have had him exiled and quitely executed and would then have designated his daughter's husband as heir long before.
 
Adoption was not a policy it was done through necessity. By chance the immediate previous emperors had no obvious male successor, although Hadrian was Trajan's closest male relative. As soon as an emperor had an obvious male heir, Commodus, the 'principle' of adoption was immediately abandonded.

The Army accepted it because the adopted successors were strong generals. The senate was irrelevent.

It is extremely likely that if Commodus was by-passed civil war would erupt. The only solution would be to have him killed and Marcus had no reason to do that. If he was as mad and bad as the senatorial historians suggest, I have little doubt that Marcus would have had him exiled and quitely executed and would then have designated his daughter's husband as heir long before.

If that's true, what if Commodus just dies in an earlier odd attempt to play Gladiator. Then Marcus is forced to pick a new successor. This might give him the chance to pass a new law endorsing the alternative method of succession or at least to write a treatise about the philosophical merits.
 

Faeelin

Banned
ISTM that there was no easy answer to the Empire's problems and that replacing Commodus is like rearranging chairs on the Titantic.

The Empire's tax base is smaller due to plagues; the barbarians are more aggressive across the border; and in the 3rd century the Parthians were replaced by the far more effective and threatening Sassanids.

In short, the Empire had to do more with less. Would replacing Commodus have changed that?
 

Susano

Banned
ISTM that there was no easy answer to the Empire's problems and that replacing Commodus is like rearranging chairs on the Titantic.

The Empire's tax base is smaller due to plagues; the barbarians are more aggressive across the border; and in the 3rd century the Parthians were replaced by the far more effective and threatening Sassanids.

In short, the Empire had to do more with less. Would replacing Commodus have changed that?
And most likely the world was in a climatic pessimum, too. Which most likely also explains the unrestful barbarians. Times simply di dnot bode well for Rome...
 
ISTM that there was no easy answer to the Empire's problems and that replacing Commodus is like rearranging chairs on the Titantic.

The Empire's tax base is smaller due to plagues; the barbarians are more aggressive across the border; and in the 3rd century the Parthians were replaced by the far more effective and threatening Sassanids.

In short, the Empire had to do more with less. Would replacing Commodus have changed that?

These comments and Susanos are quite right, but...political instability played a big role too. I seem to remember that in the 3rd century AD, there were no fewer than 45 recognized emperors. If Rome hadn't have needed to fight wars of succession, then there's more troops to fight the barbarians, fewer opportunities for the barbarians to make incursionas, and more stability to protect economic activity.
 

Faeelin

Banned
These comments and Susanos are quite right, but...political instability played a big role too. I seem to remember that in the 3rd century AD, there were no fewer than 45 recognized emperors. If Rome hadn't have needed to fight wars of succession, then there's more troops to fight the barbarians, fewer opportunities for the barbarians to make incursionas, and more stability to protect economic activity.

When you have forty five emperors, not including various rebels, then it's a systematic problem, not a leadership one.
 
Hrm, maybe if an Emperor who was in power earlier than Diocletian had the gonads to take a more blatantly Monarchical attitude towards the Imperial Throne, then it might make it a bit more stable so long as said Emperor is competent and capable of knocking down assassination plots and potential coups for the first few years of his reign.
 
Rome was very resilient. It had weathered civil wars, barbarian invasions and plagues before. Indeed, under Marcus it only narrowly avoided a civil war but got the other two at the same time.

Once the idea that a succession could be designated outside the Imperial family as under the so-called Five Good Emperors, then it was open slather. This is what appears to have happened after the murder of Commodus. The strongest general would get the power and would rule until he was overthrown by another general. Since Rome was essentially a military dictatorship, we should expect nothing else.

In my opinion the precedent set by the Five Good Emperors were more disastrous for the principle of succession than the events of 69.

In modern dictatorships the junta serves out the prizes and suppresses the overly ambitious. It always amazes me that with their extensive network of spies the emperors kept getting surprised by coups and rebellions. Any overly ambitious general always tried to get the prize. Military rebellions were continually being uncovered and put down during the Julio-Claudian period for example. Nero was unlucky in that for some reason his military support was not in a position to come to his aid earlier. Bad strategic planning by a lazy emperor perhaps.

Once the strategic circumstances changed and the numbers of Legions were increased along the Danube and decreased along the Rhine, rebellion became easier since it was a much shorter route to Rome from the former than from the latter. Of course due to the continual fighting on the Danube front, these legionaries were much better at combat.
 
Which is why I said a more blatantly monarchial attitude towards the succession would have helped to reduce a lot of the problems that the Empire faced internally.
 
Wouldnt that idea (of a Monarchy) have provoked the wrath of the Roman People? (they were under the impression that Rome was still a Republic... the only thing that was changed was instead of multiple people holding offices, one person was holding multiple offices...)
Diocletian was able to pass to the Dominate only because the Empire had too many eastern influences... (He required to be called "Dominus et Deus" a title formerly used by Persian Kings)
If some General seizes the throne before 3rd century and starts acting like the old Kings then there would be a Julius Caesar scenario all over again...
 

Susano

Banned
In my opinion the precedent set by the Five Good Emperors were more disastrous for the principle of succession than the events of 69.
Except that the Five Emperors did not set that preedent. Successionby marriage was very common in ancient Rome, not only in matters of the Emperorship, bt in private lives as well. As for the Emperorship, thats how Octivian August suceeded Caesar, so, really, the Five Emperors didnot establish that.
 
Wouldnt that idea (of a Monarchy) have provoked the wrath of the Roman People? (they were under the impression that Rome was still a Republic... the only thing that was changed was instead of multiple people holding offices, one person was holding multiple offices...)
Diocletian was able to pass to the Dominate only because the Empire had too many eastern influences... (He required to be called "Dominus et Deus" a title formerly used by Persian Kings)
If some General seizes the throne before 3rd century and starts acting like the old Kings then there would be a Julius Caesar scenario all over again...

Well, if the Emperor was savvy and clever enough, then no. By the late 2nd century, people had started to realize it was not a Republic. They certainly knew it by the 3rd. Somebody who was capable of combating assassins and conspirators could very well pull it off at around that time. So yeah, someone in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries AD could definitely pull it off if he did it right.
 
Well, if the Emperor was savvy and clever enough, then no. By the late 2nd century, people had started to realize it was not a Republic. They certainly knew it by the 3rd. Somebody who was capable of combating assassins and conspirators could very well pull it off at around that time. So yeah, someone in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries AD could definitely pull it off if he did it right.

I agree to that... thats why i mentioned Diocletian... He already knew that Republic was dead and was clever enough to neutralise any potential threats... He was influenced too by eastern traditions and practices...
 
Top