AHC:Turning the Roman/East Roman Empire into a full dynastic state

Augustus and Livia had a son. Or Julia is a boy.

That son succeeds peacefully in AD 14.

Then that son has a son.

And that son has a son.

And so on and so forth.

Let's say Augustus and Livia has a son born in AD 37. Let's call him Gaius.

He succeeds his father in AD 14. Dies in AD 40 at the age of 77 (same age as Tiberius or Augustus). Gaius has a son named say, Publius. He is born in AD 10.

He becomes Emperor in AD 40. He dies at the age of 68 in AD 78. Publius has a son. Let's call him Augustus. He is born in AD 50.

Augustus II becomes emperor in AD 78. He dies in AD 98 at the age of 48. Augustus II has a son born in AD 72 called Gaius II. He succeeds in AD 98.

All you need is a string of succession from the same family, an unbroken line of father son succession for a couple of hundred years.

Then the family of Augustus would become the House of Rome in this time line.
 
Problem is what stops Augustus' descendants from being offed or deposed within the first few generations like OTL when a Nero came to the throne(who incidentally IS a direct descendant of Augustus)?
 
Problem is what stops Augustus' descendants from being offed or deposed within the first few generations like OTL when a Nero came to the throne(who incidentally IS a direct descendant of Augustus)?



Simply make them competent enough in the first few generations. Being not crazy like Caligula or Nero would do. Just competent like Claudius or Tiberius.

Basically, what I am saying is what is needed is simply a few competent emperors from the same family ruling for two or three hundred years. You do not need them to be amazing. Just be skilled enough to hang on to the position, and that is that.

So assume all the first few emperors of the first few hundred years are competent enough so that when an incompetent emperor succeeds, deposing him by force would be unthinkable. And if he were to be deposed, he would be replaced by his son or nearest male heir. Anybody else would be unthinkable.
 
Last edited:

scholar

Banned
Problem is what stops Augustus' descendants from being offed or deposed within the first few generations like OTL when a Nero came to the throne(who incidentally IS a direct descendant of Augustus)?
The actual series of events that lead to their deaths being altered. Caligula was only killed because of the Praetorian Guard, the same Guard that Sejanus was a part of and used to kill off and alienate many of the successors to Tiberius that would have been ahead of Caligula so that he could become Tiberius's successor. Nero was killed off by senatorial conspiracy as a result of a number of factors that are almost indecipherable, but he killed off almost anyone who could theoretically be a rival even should they have no real political power. By the time of his death, there was quite literally no one left of any real dynastic connection who could have succeeded.

If you can mitigate the power of the Praetorians, and have one or two emperors after Augustus who had a clear hand on the reins of power and did not allow men like Sejanus to rise to power then the royal family would be expansive enough, with enough experience in transitions of power, that it would be harder for men like Sejanus to rise to power.

One last factor that made things difficult is that originally titles of imperium used to expire after a period of five, ten, or twenty years. When they were made for life, it became impossible to constitutionally limit the power of a bad Emperor or Imperial Prince. If they those powers could expire, and the reality of their power expiring matched the constitutional expiration, then assassination would not be necessary if the Senate or Army felt like they could wait a little while to have power revert to someone more competent.
 
Inspired by the thead discussion here..The plan is to do the opposite,how could the Roman Empire or it's successor the ERE be transformed in such a way that legitimacy to the throne rest on blood alone similar to Western Europe and not by either popular support or because general A has an army?

Some argue that the easiest way is to have a continuous lines of natural sons succeeding their fathers.
But the problem is not that some emperors didn't had sons, problem is that even sons of emperors could be killed. E.g., Marcus Aurelius had a son, but Commodus was killed and it didn't ended in a dynasty. Same thing for Vespasian: his first son died without having children, his second was killed. Claudius had a son too, but he died ("of a natural death") after Nero became emperor.

The problem is that Rome had deep-rooted republican traditions: as you know, every emperor, wheter he was acclaimed by the army or appointed by his successor (natural or adoptive father), had to be formally confirmed by the senate. Nerva was even elected by the senate without support but the army or the former emperor.

This means that no person had, in the Romans' (and Byzantines') understanding of law and state a natural right to be emperor. Everyone could challenge him and if he won the support of the army, he had good chances to overthrow the ruling emperor. Think of what Diocletian did: he regularized the right of succession in detail. And nobody bothered about it.

As long as you don't formally abolish the republic, the Romans will continue to have no special respect for a dynastic order of succession.
 
Some argue that the easiest way is to have a continuous lines of natural sons succeeding their fathers.
But the problem is not that some emperors didn't had sons, problem is that even sons of emperors could be killed. E.g., Marcus Aurelius had a son, but Commodus was killed and it didn't ended in a dynasty. Same thing for Vespasian: his first son died without having children, his second was killed. Claudius had a son too, but he died ("of a natural death") after Nero became emperor.

The problem is that Rome had deep-rooted republican traditions: as you know, every emperor, wheter he was acclaimed by the army or appointed by his successor (natural or adoptive father), had to be formally confirmed by the senate. Nerva was even elected by the senate without support but the army or the former emperor.

This means that no person had, in the Romans' (and Byzantines') understanding of law and state a natural right to be emperor. Everyone could challenge him and if he won the support of the army, he had good chances to overthrow the ruling emperor. Think of what Diocletian did: he regularized the right of succession in detail. And nobody bothered about it.

As long as you don't formally abolish the republic, the Romans will continue to have no special respect for a dynastic order of succession.
Is there any way of formally abolishing the republic for the first few emperors without being offed like Caesar because he was thought to have such intention?

As for formally abolishing the republic,isn't that what Heraclius basically did?Didn't he just abolish the last vestiges of the republic?
 
Last edited:
Some argue that the easiest way is to have a continuous lines of natural sons succeeding their fathers.
But the problem is not that some emperors didn't had sons, problem is that even sons of emperors could be killed. E.g., Marcus Aurelius had a son, but Commodus was killed and it didn't ended in a dynasty. Same thing for Vespasian: his first son died without having children, his second was killed. Claudius had a son too, but he died ("of a natural death") after Nero became emperor.

The problem is that Rome had deep-rooted republican traditions: as you know, every emperor, wheter he was acclaimed by the army or appointed by his successor (natural or adoptive father), had to be formally confirmed by the senate. Nerva was even elected by the senate without support but the army or the former emperor.

This means that no person had, in the Romans' (and Byzantines') understanding of law and state a natural right to be emperor. Everyone could challenge him and if he won the support of the army, he had good chances to overthrow the ruling emperor. Think of what Diocletian did: he regularized the right of succession in detail. And nobody bothered about it.

As long as you don't formally abolish the republic, the Romans will continue to have no special respect for a dynastic order of succession.

Rome was never as dynastic as Mediaeval Europe, but claiming that the Romans had "no special respect for a dynastic order of succession" is going too far. From the beginning of the principate Augustus favoured his blood relatives for the succession, only turning to Tiberius after his grandsons had died. Even then Tiberius was adopted as Augustus' son. When Augustus died, the new Emperor thought it best to have Postumus Agrippa assassinated, although Agrippa (who'd spent the past few years in exile on a rock in the middle of the sea) had no experience or qualifications for the throne other than being related to Augustus. Caligula and Claudius were both popular (although in Caligula's case this ended up waning) because of their familial relationship to Germanicus. When Claudius made Nero his heir instead of Britannicus this was widely attributed to the machinations of his new wife, the implication being that Claudius would naturally be expected to choose his own son as successor. Again, when Nero came to the throne, almost the first thing he did was murder Britannicus, who had the potential to be a rival due to his relationship to the previous Emperor. And so on. Even during the Republican period a politician's clients would pass to his heir on his death, and coming from an established political dynasty was a big boost to somebody's prestige and chances of political success. The Empire continued this. So, as I said, not as dynastic as Mediaeval Europe, but certainly more dynastic than modern politics.
 
Rome was never as dynastic as Mediaeval Europe, but claiming that the Romans had "no special respect for a dynastic order of succession" is going too far.

"The Romans" means "all potential emperors excpet the emperor creating the order of succession."

From the beginning of the principate Augustus favoured his blood relatives for the succession, only turning to Tiberius after his grandsons had died. Even then Tiberius was adopted as Augustus' son. When Augustus died, the new Emperor thought it best to have Postumus Agrippa assassinated, although Agrippa (who'd spent the past few years in exile on a rock in the middle of the sea) had no experience or qualifications for the throne other than being related to Augustus. Caligula and Claudius were both popular (although in Caligula's case this ended up waning) because of their familial relationship to Germanicus. When Claudius made Nero his heir instead of Britannicus this was widely attributed to the machinations of his new wife, the implication being that Claudius would naturally be expected to choose his own son as successor. Again, when Nero came to the throne, almost the first thing he did was murder Britannicus, who had the potential to be a rival due to his relationship to the previous Emperor. And so on. Even during the Republican period a politician's clients would pass to his heir on his death, and coming from an established political dynasty was a big boost to somebody's prestige and chances of political success. The Empire continued this. So, as I said, not as dynastic as Mediaeval Europe, but certainly more dynastic than modern politics.

Right, right. You shouldn't misunderstand me: I never said the Romans had no sense for dynasties or dynastic policies. But dynasties weren't regarded as that holy has their were perceived in medieval times. Feudal Europe saw the creations of different rights of succession applying to different countries; the "rightful" successor was in a very strong position. I think that the Romans were much more pragmatic in dynastic affairs.

They accepted dynasties as long as they were strong, but they never respected an emperor just because he was "rightfully", "through blood" in his position. Medieval Europe was a bit different.
 
Tonifranz;11227551 And if he were to be deposed said:
This was actually the case by the time of Nero OTL. The Julio-Claudian dynasty was considered THE imperial family, it was unthinkable to have someone outside the family become princeps. The problem was, Nero killed off the rest of the male line in the family out of rivalry or fear that they'd replace him on the throne. So when Nero died, nobody was there from the Julio-Claudians to take the throne.

The simplest thing to do would be to prevent Nero from taking out the entire male line of the Julio-CLaudians.
 
This was actually the case by the time of Nero OTL. The Julio-Claudian dynasty was considered THE imperial family, it was unthinkable to have someone outside the family become princeps. The problem was, Nero killed off the rest of the male line in the family out of rivalry or fear that they'd replace him on the throne. So when Nero died, nobody was there from the Julio-Claudians to take the throne.

The simplest thing to do would be to prevent Nero from taking out the entire male line of the Julio-CLaudians.
So the best solution was to have the Julio-Claudians not to try and purge their male relatives?
 
So the best solution was to have the Julio-Claudians not to try and purge their male relatives?

Yes. As long as a male Julio-Claudian is alive, he will always be the first choice. The calculations changed drastically once a new dynasty came to the throne, because then it showed that any family could rise to the purple.
 
As for formally abolishing the republic,isn't that what Heraclius basically did?Didn't he just abolish the last vestiges of the republic?

He did not. Byzantine Emperors long after Heraclius defined their role specifically as being in service to the people and the Politeia, a term Greek writers had been using as a direct translation of Res Publica pretty much from the beginning. Yes, there was of course the divine element, but serving God and serving the Politeia were more or less interchangeable, what with the Romans being God's chosen people and the Roman Empire being God's chosen state.
 
I dont know werent the paleologii technichally a dynastic family that lasted two + centuries. Unlesas of course late ere doesnt count. Even then you had the Macedonians... if only Basil II had competant heirs...
 
I dont know werent the paleologii technichally a dynastic family that lasted two + centuries. Unlesas of course late ere doesnt count. Even then you had the Macedonians... if only Basil II had competant heirs...
I think the Palaeologos were the closes after the Julio-Claudians to have turned the RE into a dynastic state,but as the crowning of John Kantakouzenos indicated,it was far from an actual dynastic state.As for the Macedonians,not sure about those guys.There were multiple attempts at usurpation.Basil II had to put down two major rebellions.The Macedonians frequently had to associate a political strongman on the throne as co-emperor.
 
Top