AHC: A Stable System of Succession for Roman Empire

What would be the best succession system for the throne of Roman Empire, in order to make civil wars and usurpations as minimal as possible?
A written law? Could that really work?
 
Sorry - can't think of one.

Any succession system would have to deal with the tremendous strains of communications delays between different parts of the empire. This means that the frontier armies will always be out of contact with the centre and the centre is a vacuum filled by politicians and pretorians.

Possibly a State Religion where the very act of usurpation was an offense against God (think late Middle Ages Europe) but that didn't always work out either. However as a counterbalance to the Emperor a powerful clergy and sympathetic (to the clergy) army and population would help

Create a powerful Pope alongside Constantine the Great?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
A succession system would probably sound too monarchist if it was introduced early, so you'd have to look more at the late empire, I think.
 

Thande

Donor
I'm thinking of the Chinese system whereby the emperor wrote down his desired heir and put the document or tablet in a safe, defended inner sanctum to be opened after his death; he could revise the tablet at any time to reflect which of his sons was most favoured. The Roman system means they would probably be able to pick anyone rather than just blood relatives.

Of course this system wasn't exactly foolproof either.
 
They had a succession system: election by the Senate. Unfortunately, the army insisted on having a vote - and that was how everything failed. Any stable succession system would either have to reverse that long tradition or take it into account; frankly, I don't see how it could work.
 
I'm thinking of the Chinese system whereby the emperor wrote down his desired heir and put the document or tablet in a safe, defended inner sanctum to be opened after his death; he could revise the tablet at any time to reflect which of his sons was most favoured. The Roman system means they would probably be able to pick anyone rather than just blood relatives.

Of course this system wasn't exactly foolproof either.

I wonder, didn't the Chinese army proclaim their own emperor, just like what their Roman counterparts have done for so many times...?
 
I don't understand the point here - the Roman Empire did have a stable system of succession, and a flexible one at times. The only time it broke down was when emperors were seriously incapable (and deposition can happen in every monarchical system) or when there was chronic political instability which was irrelevant to the succession.
 
This thread interested me because it could give me some ideas for my Medieval Roman TL... Anyway i guess any system of succession, for the most stable it may appear, could have some bugs in the end...

For example, the system of succession i gave for now in my Roman Empire is essentially a double recognition for a only candidate from two senatorial assemblies ( Rome for the title of Western Emperor and Costantinople for that of Eastern...); this happened because at the time of Justinian the Roman Senate still existed, and because that time Italy was firmly in his control the Senators of the Eternal City reclaimed their rule.

This was a weak succession system, because the assemblies could proclaim in any moment two different candidates so start de facto a civil war ( as is going to appear in the second prologue of the TL: OC Eraclius is going to be crowned Emperor from the Senate in Rome while Phocas from the remnants of that of Costantinople.).

At a certain point, one of two Senate will be abolished ( if you want to know what, follow my TL...;)), but surely that move it may be sufficient if not accompanied by a complete administrative and social reform, because the Empire was more great and multiethnical than OTL Byzantine...

I had my own ideas, but for now i will keep by part to not give spoliers and also to see if someone have a better idea.

( I'm horrible. :( Pratically i made here publicity for my TL... Well, i hope it wasn't vain :D)
 
I don't understand the point here - the Roman Empire did have a stable system of succession, and a flexible one at times. The only time it broke down was when emperors were seriously incapable (and deposition can happen in every monarchical system) or when there was chronic political instability which was irrelevant to the succession.

Errr, what? If some generals were able to take the throne by using their army, I wouldn't call it a "stable" system of succession.
 
Errr, what? If some generals were able to take the throne by using their army, I wouldn't call it a "stable" system of succession.

What does this have to do with the succession? The system of succession used in the Empire in the later centuries of instability was the exact same one used in the early centuries under the five good emperors. This supposedly wildly deficient system was the same one of military and popular acclamation, used at the height of Rome's successs.

What you actually mean in this thread is 'how can we prevent successful coups in the Roman Empire?' This has absolutely nothing to do with succession, anymore than a modern coup would. If you're in an envronment where might makes right - and all dictatorships work on that principle - then you have to keep the centre mighty and effective. And, perhaps, a little lucky too.
 
What does this have to do with the succession?
But one could still argue that it was the lack of clear system of succession that drove various generals into claiming the throne for themselves. E.g. Year of Four Emperors after the death of Nero, Year of Five Emperors after the death of Commodus, Crisis of Third Century after the death of Alexander Severus, etc.

The system of succession used in the Empire in the later centuries of instability was the exact same one used in the early centuries under the five good emperors. This supposedly wildly deficient system was the same one of military and popular acclamation, used at the height of Rome's successs.
Now that was the problem that the Romans faced: their OTL system of succession was too greatly depending on sheer luck. (it might be argued that the late empire simply has ran out of luck). Especially when we look into peaceful transitions of dynasties from Flavian to Nervan-Antonine, from Constantinian to Valentinian, etc. The question is: was there any succession system available for the Romans that less depend on luck?

What you actually mean in this thread is 'how can we prevent successful coups in the Roman Empire?' This has absolutely nothing to do with succession, anymore than a modern coup would.
Well, actually it was more like 'how can we establish a clear, stable, and definitive system of succession, in order to prevent the generals into thinking about rebelled and claimed the throne in the first place?'.
 
In order to establish a stable succession, they would have had to change the culture of the military and make it less prone to coups. This really stems from the citizen soldiery of the Republican period, which of course produced political generals. When the transition to a professional army was made, people continued to think of soldiers as normal citizens who could hold any political office - this allowed generals to have huge followings amongst their soldiers whilst also being popular politicians, hence Marius, Sulla etc.

The Empire should have tried to reform the officer corps and make them career soldiers, all commissioned after graduating from a military academy and having to resign their commissions before taking political office. Senior officers should also have been rotated between commands/ staff positions frequently so that they wouldn't have been able to establish huge personal followings. With all this in place, they would have been able to establish a system of succession less likely to be interfered with by the military.
 
Top