What it says on the tin. MA’s kids had a habit of dying young, except for Commodus. If he followed his siblings’ example, who might MA tap?
In the scenario you're referring to, Cassius does not revolt, but is adopted by Aurelius as heir. Which is a perfectly likely scenario, he had a good relationship with Aurelius and his family (hence why he was trusted with such a sweeping command in Syria in the first place) and was top among Aurelius's generals.Not sure I buy the argument that Avidius Cassius using the army to seize the throne establishes a tradition of military discipline. If anything his coup succeeding would only bolster the army's desire to seek a bonus by overthrowing the Emperor. Something that happened to an unprecedented level just a few generations later.
I don't think anyone is saying that replacing Commodus with someone else is going to make the third century not bad for the Roman Empire. It will be bad no matter what they do, due to forces beyond their control (climate change, disease, etc.). However the collapse in military discipline and the wrecking of the financial system is something that occurred under Commodus and then was exacerbated to an absurd extent by the Severans. There is no reason to assume at this stage that the army has to become the mess it became over the next few decades, nor does the fiscal situation of the empire have to be so disastrous.Also does Cassius being successful mean any significant shortening of the already long-dragging Marcomannic War? Long wars like that are rarely good for discipline of large field forces. Or does it reverse the effects of the damaging Antonine Plague?
I have my doubts about Pompeianus, given that he repeatedly turned the imperial honours down, but he'd probably do well if he actually accepted.Alternatively, and probably more likely, is Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus. Pompeianus was one of the closest confidants of Aurelius and the brother in law of Commodus via marriage to Marcus Aurelius's daughter Lucilla, which signals the high regard he was held in by the emperor. IOTL Aurelius even went so far as to name Pompeianus Caesar, but this offer was refused. Which is I think the only way Cassius gets offered the throne-if Pompeianus, for some reason or another, refuses the offer to be Aurelius's successor. Should he accept though, he'd make a fine emperor. Unfortunately we don't know enough about his son (who was executed by Caracalla) to be able to figure out how that dynasty would turn out. One thing is for certain though, there are very few options that could turn out worse than the Severans.
Not sure I buy the argument that Avidius Cassius using the army to seize the throne establishes a tradition of military discipline.
Also does Cassius being successful mean any significant shortening of the already long-dragging Marcomannic War? Long wars like that are rarely good for discipline of large field forces. Or does it reverse the effects of the damaging Antonine Plague?
Presumably ITTL they both die.Out of curiosity, assuming Commodus dies young, what's to stop M. Aurelius from naming another son, (Marcus Annius Verus) or his son-in-law (Lucius Verus) or grandson (Lucius' son) as heir? If Commodus dies in his first year of life, then what's there to stop Marcus Annius Verus Caesar (b.162) surviving? Esp. since Annius was named heir in 166, alongside Commodus.
It's not like he was lacking in sons-in-law, so is the Antonine Plague just like FOXDIE in this universe?Presumably ITTL they both die.
If Aurelius still has enough get up and go, see no real reason why not, just father a new son?
Out of curiosity, assuming Commodus dies young, what's to stop M. Aurelius from naming another son, (Marcus Annius Verus) or his son-in-law (Lucius Verus) or grandson (Lucius' son) as heir? If Commodus dies in his first year of life, then what's there to stop Marcus Annius Verus Caesar (b.162) surviving? Esp. since Annius was named heir in 166, alongside Commodus.