alternatehistory.com

As we know, upon Augustus's death the Roman Principate (that is, the autocratic Roman Empire that existed under the pretenses of the Republic) passed to his son-in-law, Tiberius, who became something of a brooding old man later in life and started, properly, the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The Principate continued on for a few centuries before the Crisis of the Third Century precipitated the creation of the overtly monarchical Dominate.

This would not have to be the case. Suppose Gaius Julius Caesar, son of Agrippa and grandson of Augustus who we will call "GJC II" to avoid confusion, who is supposed to have been very capable, doesn't die OTL (though his brother Lucius does). He should, at 34 (in 14 AD), assume command of the Empire upon his grandfather's death. We can likely assume GJC II will have sons of his own, so this will create something of a direct line from Augustus for a few generations. GJC II himself, somewhat unlikely if he's lucky and as healthy as his grandfather (died 75), could rule for 41 capable years or up until the year 55 AD.

What does this do for the unwritten constitution of the Roman Empire? The Imperial office may also have more legitimacy for a time due to two successive extremely competent rulers, and could benefit from a direct lineage so as to avoid later problems with succession. Does the overt dominate evolve earlier if the Julio-Agrippa dynasty lasts for more than a hundred or so years?

GJC II inheriting from his grandfather could (and as far as I understand it was) be controversial, so would this actually end up leading to a more public and organized anti-monarchical sentiment that could restore the Republic for a time?
Top