Stolengood
Banned
And, of course, Hadrian went through so many adoptive heirs it was ridiculous... a very good thing Marcus Aurelius was as loyal a brother as he was an emperor.
Five Good Emperors Overrated?
- Thread starter hasdrubal barca
- Start date
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Well, I don't know where wiki has this information from, and your solution of two emperors could be a very interesting POD. But there's still the legitimacy problem around.
Commodus as M.A.' natural son has IMHO a stronger claim to the throne than Pompeianus. A bit like Augustus as Caesar's adoptive son had a stronger claim than Marcus Antonius who was simply a general and friend of Caesar's.
Now you might object that Rome was still a republic, that the Principate wasn't hereditary, that the Romans didn't know the medieval principle of claims and succussion orders.
But remember what happened just one century later when the tetrarchy dissolved because some (one?) of the Augusti had a son who wanted to be emperor instead of the actual Caesar. It seems that the Romans thought a natural son to be closer to his father than an adoptive son. And that's the whole problem.
Augustus appointed his grandson and his step-son/son-in-law as joint heirs initially.I see no problem with adopting an heir in addition to your natural son considering the later is really incompetent,especially since Pompeianus' son happened to be M.A's biological grandson.As for the tetarchy,that's a totally different ballgame.
Last edited:
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Maybe. Maybe it would've been a perfect solution. But it can work only if Commodus and Pompeianus are loyal both to the decision of their father and to each other. Just like Marcus Aurelius respected Hadrian's wish and let Lucius Verus be the second ruler instead of simply murdering him.
But do you really think that a crazy guy like Commodus would've shared his power with a person trying to control his decisions? And do you really think that Pompeianus wouldn't have tried to overthrow his adoptive brother acting like an idiot?
IMHO, a Geta/Caracalla scenario is much more likely to happen in that situation.
A Commodus sharing power with someone actually interested in administration might be just fine. Most of his issues...that we know of, really sketchy sourcing...seem to have arisen from complacency, idleness or disinterest rather than power-hungry paranoia. By the time he starts having people killed, it's in response to legit conspiracies against him that his idleness had prompted. There have been working partnerships between a popular but disinterested front man and a competent but reticent administrator, which might be an apt description of Pompeianus...not sure that kind of solution was impossible here.
I think Commodus would have let Pompeianus handle the shit while he indulges in parties and gladiatorial games.The problem about his reign seems to be the fact that he wasn't really interested in ruling and when he had to kill people,he was trying to kill those who are gunning for his throne due to his incompetence.During Commodus' reign,he left the day to day running of the government to others anyway,I don't see why he wouldn't let his co-emperor handle the governance.In all seriousness,I think Lucius Verus would be another Commodus if M.A wasn't there to handle his shit.Besides,if Pompeianus' the co-emperor,I'm pretty sure that most of the administration and soldiers would be loyal to him rather than Commodus considering Pompeianus was a highly experienced general and thus likely well acquainted with the military.
Last edited:
The 5 Good Emperors prevented anything like a civil war occurring any time from 96-180. That in itself is an achievement noteworthy when the rest of the Roman Empire's history is concerned.
However, it is basically the only thing that sets them apart as fantastic - the Julius/Augustus/Tiberius/Claudius period, which was of similar length, saw more conquest. At least Augustus' reign saw more wealth flowing into the empire. Constantine and a few others around that time also stopped a civil war.
Really, most of the Roman Empire's history was some idiot* taking over, then his successor` fixing everything up. For 4 centuries. Nerva-Aurelius was a period that broke that cycle, but is not really deserving of any significant mention in a frame of reference larger than the Empire. For the Empire, it was a good period. For the rest of the world, those 5 leaders simply show what a century of rulership should be like, not anything especially noteworthy (unlike Augustus).
(* = Caligula, Nero, Commodus, the people in the 3rd century, etc) (` = Claudius, Vespasian, Septimius, Constantine for the rulers listed as *)
- BNC
However, it is basically the only thing that sets them apart as fantastic - the Julius/Augustus/Tiberius/Claudius period, which was of similar length, saw more conquest. At least Augustus' reign saw more wealth flowing into the empire. Constantine and a few others around that time also stopped a civil war.
Really, most of the Roman Empire's history was some idiot* taking over, then his successor` fixing everything up. For 4 centuries. Nerva-Aurelius was a period that broke that cycle, but is not really deserving of any significant mention in a frame of reference larger than the Empire. For the Empire, it was a good period. For the rest of the world, those 5 leaders simply show what a century of rulership should be like, not anything especially noteworthy (unlike Augustus).
(* = Caligula, Nero, Commodus, the people in the 3rd century, etc) (` = Claudius, Vespasian, Septimius, Constantine for the rulers listed as *)
- BNC
But wasn't there an element of luck about it?
How often were you going to get four Emperors in a row none of whom had a son? Wasn't the luck bound to run out sooner or later?
Augustus effectively made several people his heir. I'm not sure he ever wanted one heir but several heirs that shared in the political authority he had.
As for Aurelius and Pompeianus, just have Commodus contract smallpox and you have Pompeianus as your heir.
Why is it so desperately important to get rid of Commodus?
He wasn't particularly marvellous, but why should his reign harm the Empire any worse than Nero's or Domitian's did?
After all, the real blow-out didn't come until the 230s, by which time Commodus would in any case have been long dead and cremated.
Obviously getting rid of Commodus isn't necessarily essential, nor can Commodus be blamed for the Third Century Crisis. But avoiding his reign and instead having a capable successor to Marcus Aurelius does provide important changes. Someone more in line with completing Aurelius's policy goals with regards to ending the Marcomannic War would leave Rome in a better position militarily to defend against the pressure that will be placed on Rome from the north during the crisis. Also, it provides a longer period of relative political stability, and avoids the decimation of the treasury caused by Commodus. More importantly, butterflies likely mean the Severan dynasty, and their damaging policies (enriching the army at all costs) and dynastic infighting is avoided.
Essentially, the butterflies created by avoiding the damaging rule of Commodus are likely to create a more stable political environment from which Rome is more able to deal with the economic, foreign, and social problems of the Third Century Crisis.
I think it's possible; a sort of Veres/Aurelius relationship, though as someone said when the going got tough, Veres was nothing if not a master delegator, something Commodus sorely lacked.
Having a son or not doesn't really matter, as long as no complete fools are able to take power. If say Hadrian raised a son who ended up emperor, and the son was still a decent and capable ruler, then the Roman Empire would prosper as much as if this decent and capable ruler was adopted. Dynasty wasn't as important then as it was in the Middle Ages.
- BNC
Yeah. People forget that Trajan treated Hadrian like a son and Hadrian did the same for those who picked out as successors.
Roman views on family were fundamentally different from ours, and both are from medieval norms. Adoption wasn't really considered lesser...it was a very pragmatic approach, and being adopted was often a boon (remember adoption was almost universally within class, not like street orphans or w/e). So much so that, contrary to later views, the son given up for adoption was conventionally the eldest, and the idea was to have the ablest heir possible.
Think of it more like partnerships in a big law firm; nepotism might get you a seat at the table, but from there on it's not blood that usually determines seniority/promotion, as a firm wants the best m.p. and are fine adding/subtracting names so long as it's beneficial.
Edit: now, granted, it could be easier all the way around if your natural son was your ablest (or close) heir...that might simplify the transference, but I think like 7 emperors were adopted, and there were dozens of other heirs who never made it or were eventually replaced, so that gives you some idea of their views on adoption.
Last edited:
scholar
Banned
In Rome, there was no difference between a genetic child and an adopted child. Or the difference was so small, that it made no matter in law or culture. It was typically done for maternal relatives, or sororal relatives. Octavian was a nephew by way of Julius's family's female line, and while the father's family was dominant, the maternal family was of exceptional importance as well.
Granted purely political adoptions were viewed differently, but on a whole it remained so. Severus rehabilitated Commodus as a brother to claim continuation of the Nervan-Antonine line.
But most (even ephemeral 3C ones) generally tried to name their sons as heirs if they had one.
Also, sons who were brought up in the Purple seem to have had a rather poor track record, so the chances of getting a complete fool are quite high.
And are we perhaps worrying too much about an Emperor's personal qualities? After all, Nero and Domitian were shrugged off easily enough, while in the 3C many perfectly capable Emperors were just as short-lived as the bad ones.
Caligula almost wiped out the treasury. Commodus nearly did the same. The empire was dealt a mortal wound when Majorian died.
I think the personal qualities mattered a great deal.
- BNC