Clear roman imperial succession

One of the causes that caused Roman decline was unclear and not universally accepted succession, which allowed culture of usurpers to rise. The fact that some pulled it off only caused further usurpers to aim for the purple.

But would it be possible to have clear succession laws in place that would be accepted by all? Or would tradition of republic and anti-monarchical sentiments still be present even during empire and prevent it?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
if Augustus sons and grandsons managed to succeed to principate and each managed to reign for 20-30 years, they could establish newer tradition.


France like HRE originally have elected kings, several generations under Capetians managed to change that. Principate / Emperor position itself become tradition because Augustus managed to live so long, if Augustus die younger, more frequent coup by general marching to rome will happen more often.
 
It would be very difficult, to say the least. One problem came from the fact that the empire was "legally" a republic. The people of Rome hated the idea of a monarchy, that's why a lot of times the Emperor had himself confirmed by the senate, a way to say that "legally" he was elected and did not inherit the position. Also at various times there was a clear line of succession. For most of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (except of Claudius' ascension) the Emperor named his heir before death. The same for the era of the Five good emperors. The power to over-through the whole dynasty only came about after the death of Nero, which left the throne wide open for anyone with an army. The only way I can think of to keep the Emperors from being overthrown constantly would be to say they were ordained by the gods, like how medieval monarchs were crowned God's representatives on earth. If the army could be made to stop overthrowing every Emperor that irritated them then a stable monarchy with respected succession laws could be created, or finish being created, considering Augustus was pretty successful.
 
if Augustus sons and grandsons managed to succeed to principate and each managed to reign for 20-30 years, they could establish newer tradition.


France like HRE originally have elected kings, several generations under Capetians managed to change that. Principate / Emperor position itself become tradition because Augustus managed to live so long, if Augustus die younger, more frequent coup by general marching to rome will happen more often.

OK, elected emperor would work, as long as once elected he is accepted. But who would elect him? Senate?
 
I think that emperor elected by senate would work. But would this cause that senate choice weak puppet emperor and real power has senate?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
OK, elected emperor would work, as long as once elected he is accepted. But who would elect him? Senate?


Um, not advocating electing emperor; just pointing out that tradition / legality could be changed if there are several decades of new tradition.
 
The Byzantine era is a pretty good sign of to what extent - and with what problems - dynastic rule could sink in.

The thing, with the ultimate determining factor of an emperor's stay on the throne being the mob (first of Old Rome, then Constantinople) and the army, anyone who can win their approval can overthrow the emperor because without those, what does the Emperor have to put teeth into any legal claims to power? Nothing.

However, this isn't as bad as it looks - Byzantine dynasties were reasonably secure.

And as Henry Tudor shows, a man with an army can be a potential usurper anywhere.

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=fate_of_roman_emperors
 
I basically agree with Elfwine.

The fact that the whole 'Emperor' thing was a direct evolution from dictators like Marius, Sulla and Julius Caesar means there's a pretty long tradition of strong men seizing power. It would take quite a while for that tradition to be completely overturned.

Also, as pointed out, the fact that the Romans were so allergic to the title "Rex" that the Emperor never did use it, repurposing the terms "Head Guy" (=Princeps, -> Prince) and "Commander" (=Imperator, -> Emperor) is very telling.
 
Basileus.

Seriously. Basileus.

I know that there's the idea that the Byzantines didn't wear togas while speaking Latin and wielding short swords, therefore they weren't proper Romans, but c'mon.
 
What about if the Emperor's guard was hand picked out of his most loyal soldiers from the army army that he chose himself? This would all but eliminate the problem the praetorian guard posed.
 
Two points:
1) The Empire became legally such under Vespasian. And, oh, the Senate was theoretically supposed to be the body giving legal investiture to the guy with the army, unless that of course, the Senate had no army, so very little choice in the end. It is not very different from the set of problems experienced by medieval Islamic sultans... the Ottomans were a different beast indeed (but they weren't "medieval").
2) The systems suggested above are basically very close to the ones experienced by several Roman "dynasties"... they worked, for a while.
On a far-reaching comparison, it seems that the relatively stable successions of Medieval-early moern European states were closer to the exception than the norm... and even there, with quite clear succession rules from Late Middle Ages onwards, succession conflicts were fairly common and usually nasty.
The European rule tended to be based upon the first-born rule, that was seen as inherently unjust in many other places.
 
Basileus.

Seriously. Basileus.

I know that there's the idea that the Byzantines didn't wear togas while speaking Latin and wielding short swords, therefore they weren't proper Romans, but c'mon.
True, true. But at what point did they start using the term? Was it a couple of centuries in, or did they use the Greek term in Greek from the beginning? That's a serious question, I don't know.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Basileus.

Seriously. Basileus.

I know that there's the idea that the Byzantines didn't wear togas while speaking Latin and wielding short swords, therefore they weren't proper Romans, but c'mon.
Elfwine's got it right. The Byzantine succession was as "republican" as Rome's, but they managed to establish dynasties by having sons proclaimed co-emperor while still in their minority.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
What about if the Emperor's guard was hand picked out of his most loyal soldiers from the army army that he chose himself? This would all but eliminate the problem the praetorian guard posed.
I think the Byzantine's Varangian system worked quite well. Perhaps a Germanian bodyguard?
 
True, true. But at what point did they start using the term? Was it a couple of centuries in, or did they use the Greek term in Greek from the beginning? That's a serious question, I don't know.

Heraclius. So, if we count Augustus as Emperor Number One, and Constantine XI as the Last Emperor, slightly less than half way through (600 years before it happened, eight hundred odd to go).

The problem with a handpicked guard is that the Guard is in a position of enormous power. Even if they're diehard loyal to one emperor, they may not give a damn about his successor, and constantly changing the guard's composition isn't a very good idea.

The Varangians worked fairly well, but I think that says more for the overall stability of the Byzantine era than their ethnicity.
 
Top