Effects of longer Julio-Claudian dynasty?

[DominusNovus]

What would be the general macro effects be if the Julio-Claudians were able to continue their dynasty until, say, at least AD 180 (to match the Antonines).

Not necessarily an unbroken string of good leaders, but at least capable of maintaining the bloodline for two centuries.

 

[jefferypendragon]

It would heavily depend on how they maintained their reign. Does Lucius Caesar survive and Tiberius never reign? Does Britannicus reign instead of Nero? Or a list of a dozen other possibilities.

It could drastically change the evolution of the Roman Empire or change it very little.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Agreed we need a "how".

Instead of Tiberius, Augustus could have had a whole host of alternate heirs -- Marcellus; Gaius or Lucius Ceasar (or even Postumus Agrippa); or Germanicus.

Drusus the Younger could have survived, meaning less Sejanus and no Caligula. This is my favorite.

After Tiberius, options become more limited-- Claudius succeeding Caligula can't really be improved if we want to meet the challenge. Also Brittanicus, as mentioned.

 

[Donald Reaver]

I would like to see a Britannicus surviving to become emperor timeline, could be very interesting. Have been watching the original "I, Claudius" with my youngest son, down to the last episode, been great seeing it again. Sadly can not get him interested in this site despite his strong interest in reading history. He is reading "The History of the Peloponnesian War" at the moment and wants a copy of "Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician" for Christmas.

Brittanicus is a bit of a cipher, not enough know about him to predict what he may do, but of course leaves plenty work with. Assuming Claudius was his father he may turn out to be a great Emperor. God knows Rome could use a few good ones in a row at that point.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I imagine Rome would become a more official dynastic monarchy, which probably is for the better. Any dynasty that succeeds them will probably look to seal their legitimacy by linking themselves to the Julio-Claudians. It may be that it develops that the Julio-Claudians are the only legitimate rulers. This wouldn't be that hard of a scenario to envision, since a Julio-Claudian dynasty that's still going strong after 200 years will have a lot of cadet branches. Hell, they had a lot of cadet branches IOTL until Nero axed them all.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Hell, they had a lot of cadet branches IOTL until Nero axed them all.

Which reminds me, you could even make the case that Vespasian was kind of, unofficially, a member of the Imperial Family, since his concubina was a favorite freedwoman of Antonia Minor.

 

[Mike Stearns]

It would heavily depend on how they maintained their reign. Does Lucius Caesar survive and Tiberius never reign? Does Britannicus reign instead of Nero? Or a list of a dozen other possibilities.

It could drastically change the evolution of the Roman Empire or change it very little.

I think it would substantially change the history of the Roman Empire. One of Rome's major problems and a major source of instability was that Romans never figured a stable succession, which is why Rome suffered from frequent civil wars, due to Legionary commanders getting into pissing matches over who should be Emperor.

 

[jefferypendragon]

I think it would substantially change the history of the Roman Empire. One of Rome's major problems and a major source of instability was that Romans never figured a stable succession, which is why Rome suffered from frequent civil wars, due to Legionary commanders getting into pissing matches over who should be Emperor.

Just because one dynasty rules for 2 centuries it doesn't necessarily normalize succession or prevent civil wars. Which would equate to approximately our tl Rome. But it could, which could make for a stable succession and possibly even make it so the Roman Empire never ceases to exist. Both our possibilities.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I think it would substantially change the history of the Roman Empire. One of Rome's major problems and a major source of instability was that Romans never figured a stable succession, which is why Rome suffered from frequent civil wars, due to Legionary commanders getting into pissing matches over who should be Emperor.

As Jefferypendragon pointed out, one dynasty ruling Rome does not prevent civil wars or succession struggles in and of itself, especially a dynasty that has held power for 2 centuries. The Julio-Claudian dynasty will have a web of extended branches, and since Rome did not have any formal system of succession, all of those dynasty members theoretically would have a claim to the principate.

 

[Tonifranz]

As Jefferypendragon pointed out, one dynasty ruling Rome does not prevent civil wars or succession struggles in and of itself, especially a dynasty that has held power for 2 centuries. The Julio-Claudian dynasty will have a web of extended branches, and since Rome did not have any formal system of succession, all of those dynasty members theoretically would have a claim to the principate.

Assume that Livia and Augustus had a son. Who becomes emperor. And that son had a son. And let's say that until AD 285 or so, there was a stable father son succession (not impossible. Just look at France from 987 to 1316). And there were no minorities (not impossible. Look at the Habsburgs from 1440 to 1740. No minorities too). What would be the effects for Rome if that happened?

 

[jefferypendragon]

Now if the succession was stable for ten generation, father to son or the like, a tradition would be established, maybe even a constitutional convention, which could possibly normalize succession for the next dynasty, providing part of their claim of succession is a claim of kinship and they follow the same tradition for succession. But if there were civil war after civil war of julio-claudian fighting julio claudian, you could have a 200 year dynasty without out creating transition stability. Also more then one or two being assassinated would be bad too. Praetorian Guard choosing which julio-claudian would be bad also.
The best scenario is that it remains mostly within the then existing law, so legitimacy isn't seriously challenged. If you could somehow get Claudius adopted into the Julian line, but then Caligula probably wouldn't of let him live. I've always seen Claudius's accession as the deathrows of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, not because he wasn't a good Emperor, but because he lacked true legitimacy which still needed to be cultivated at that point to further stabilize the monarchy.

 

[jefferypendragon]

Assume that Livia and Augustus had a son. Who becomes emperor. And that son had a son. And let's say that until AD 285 or so, there was a stable father son succession (not impossible. Just look at France from 987 to 1316). And there were no minorities (not impossible. Look at the Habsburgs from 1440 to 1740. No minorities too). What would be the effects for Rome if that happened?

A drastically changed Roman Empire with a chance for longer term survival.

 

[Tonifranz]

A drastically changed Roman Empire with a chance for longer term survival.

And let's add to that and say that after A.D. 285, brothers succeeded and precedent happened that would lead to agnatic primogeniture being adopted (like what happened in 1316 and 1328 in France). Say the emperor who died in 285 had a daughter but no son, but his brother was regent, and popular, and powerful, and assumed the imperial mantle. Then when he died, he had no son, but daughters. He had grandsons, but they were through the female line, and minors too. And his first cousin who happened to be the senior cousin in the male line was also powerful, popular, and on the spot, and he became emperor. And was accepted (like what happened in 1328 in France). And then he had a son and that contributed another stable father son succession for 170 years.

And those precedents were followed when there were no sons!

There you have it! Salic Law in the Roman Empire by precedent!

 

[jefferypendragon]

And that is to early for a daughter to inherit, the brother would of inherited straight away, remember the principate wasn't a single office but an amalgamation and giving someone enough power to be regent is the same as making him princeps.

Rome always accepted adoption, that emperor would of adopted his daughters son as his son. He would of have to of had no grandsons, nephews or grandnephews.