No Five Good Emperors

How would the Roman Empire have developed if the long period of the Five Good Emperors was more disorganized, or had less capable rulers?

What I'm thinking is instead of Nerva and so forth effectively choosing his successor (and adopting him), each emperor starting with Nerva actually has at least one son and elevates one of those sons to the throne. This is how the reign of the Five Good Emperors ended, after all, when an unqualified son took the throne.
 
Well then Nerva won't get chosen. Nerva was chosen explicitly because he didn't have a son to elevate as a successor. If Nerva tries to elevate his son, the army may very well declare Trajan emperor and that's gonna be all she wrote for Nerva.

But let's assume the above happens and Trajan has a son. It really depends on hwo capable that son is. Given Trajan's popularity, assuming his son is at least semi-competent he has a strong mandate to see through his rule, although it'd be interesting how he handles Hadrian and Lusius Quietus, given that they had ambitions of their own (and there's no reason ITTL that Trajan wouldn't still elevate Hadrian as high as he did). It'd also be interesting how the situation in Mesopotamia and Dacia is handled by someone other than Hadrian.

Anyway, I don't see the empire having significant problems until at least the OTL reign of Antoninus. And then again, Antoninus managed to sit back and kick the can down the road on just about everything for Marcus Aurelius and still not have any crises that led to a usurper emerging, so it's very possible that you would still have more or less a similar situation as OTL Marcus Aurelius's reign approaches.

In fact, it might be better without an Antoninus, given his replacement might me more martially inclined and more interested in actively nipping crises in the bud rather than kicking them down the road and letting them fester for a few decades.
 
Top