AHC: Save the Roman Empire (with a twist)

If a smart Emperor could face some sort of legal requirement to pick a smart successor, than how is this going to screw up?
maybe...

1. somebody who is fully loyal
2. somebody who got no own power base
3. somebody who commands no legions
4. So somebody who is not going to challenge the emperor or could be instrumentalized by a senatorial conspiration or usurpation
5. Best case his own son, if 1-4 applies. If not: kill your son.

No further qualification required. The best qualification for a co-emperor is, to be not qualified at all.
 
If a smart Emperor could face some sort of legal requirement to pick a smart successor, than how is this going to screw up?
maybe...

In a better, and pretty unroman world, the requirements would be:

1. a guy of at least consular rank. With the officially required old minimum age of 42. Not a youngster like Gaius, Lucius or Germanicus pushed thru the cursus honorum, without any serious assessment.
2. a guy who is backed by the majority of the senate
3. a guy who is beloved by the plebs urbana
4. a guy who got a lot of experience in civil adminsitration
5. and military camapaigns: the legions love him. The generals respect or fear him.
6. a guy who respects the emperors daughter and marries her
7. a guy who is wiling to adopt the emperors son and favor him over his own son, if it comes to further succession

Honestly. If such a guy exists, he should had killed the emperor already ;)

Just an example: When the senate finally appointed Claudius emperor. Who should enforce Claudius, backed by the praetorians to adopt a man of consular rank like Iunius Silanus, one of the last descendants of Augustus? Right here and now in January 41! Instead of tinkering with kids like Britannicus and later Nero? Who got the power to enforce Claudius? Just in order to avoid an incompetent and overwhelmed kid on the throne.

However. If you like to reduce civil wars. You must enforce every emperor to appoint an experienced guy directly at the day of the emperors inthronization. Without an already appointed adult successor, you risk, that senatorial legates with legions start a civil war, if the emperor dies without an already accepted heir.

But does this really reduce civil wars? Or would'nt we get even more civil wars caused by ambitious co-emperors? According to the roman mindset, the first idea a true roman, appointed co-emperor should have is, to kill the emepror asap.

Remember, the so called "Good Emperors of the 2nd Century" have just been lucky, infertile and sometimes incompetent little bastards. A guy like Lucius Verus was a great expception and a very unroman bon vivant. Perhaps the reason why Antoninus and Aurelius did not kill him. He was the perfect co-emperor I described above: Loyal and fully harmless. But imagine Marcus had died by the plague and not Lucius. And now Lucius must do the job. What a desaster.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious. Did the Romans have any concept of "1st and 2nd Lords". I.e. Technically each Legion has two commanders of equal rank, but the 2nd Lord is the Emperor, but the 1nd Lord is superior, or if citing a law is superior.

It seems a bit odd to have the Roman Emperor arguably second in command of every Legion, or in command 'except when'. But I wonder if that could prevent the rise of Emperors by the local commanders being like "Well, as long as I have the law on my side, I'm actually more important here".
 
No further qualification required. The best qualification for a co-emperor is, to be not qualified at all.

Or be forced to adopt the commander of the Germanic legions (see Nerva's example).

But now a realize that most of the Roman emperors were either usurpers or not qualified. Tiberius had been in exile, Germanicus died/was murdered before Tiberius' death...
 
Save the Roman Empire...
By having a more competent successor to Marcus Aurelius do everything positive he could, while explaining your rationale.

I would take increased stability, wealth, territorial bounds, or technological progress in the long-term as successful. Take into account stuff like earthquakes and plague cannot be butterflied. Watch out for barbarians too.

Go!
Step 1.
Defeat the Persians in battle

Step 2.
Thoroughly sack Ctesiphon and most other Mesopotamian cities;

Step 3.
Conquer Scotland and Ireland while Peria's weak

Step 4.
Enslave most tribes in Scotland and Ireland; begin Romanization process

Step 5.
Withdraw/disband Legions in Britannia, now that they're no longer needed

Step 6.
Build a fleet in the Red Sea

Step 7.
Conquer Aden and establish it as your naval base

Step 8.
Use it to contest Persian hegemony of Indian Ocean trade


Bottom line - Persia was by far Rome's biggest problem, well ahead of anyone else. Keep it weak, and everything else is much more manageable
 
Enslave most tribes in Scotland and Ireland; begin Romanization process

Step 5.
Withdraw/disband Legions in Britannia, now that they're no longer needed

This might take centuries; even after 400 years, Britain wasn't completly romanized in OTL.

Build a fleet in the Red Sea

I don't know if the Romans had a fleet on the Red Sea (but I think they had bases in Arabia and on some Red Sea islands), and they had a canal between Cairo and Arsinoe to move ships from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean.
 
Step 1.

Step 8.
Use it to contest Persian hegemony of Indian Ocean trade

Which hegemony? The persians traded via the persian gulf and the romans via the Red Sea. There was no hegemony.

Roman traders also traded via the persian gulf. Especially with arabian partners like Palmyra. The persians were not that much involved in trade with India. The nobles of Characene, a satrap of the persian empire, managed the trade with India. And even in times of war the trade was usually not blocked or hampered.

And remember. If you trade more with India, you just increase the already bad and detrimental foreign trade deficit of the empire. A persian empire blocking all trade with India would have been a godsend!
 
Top