POD for prolonged Roman Survival

I love how Septimius Severus said Aurelius should have smothered Commodus the first chance he got, then let his two disasters he called sons, who were probably worse than Commodus (at least Caracalla) to succeed him. :rolleyes:


Was there really a choice?

A lot of soldiers regarded hereditary succession as "only natural" and would be apt to go for the Emperor's son in any case. Elagabalus got the Purple on the strength of a palpably false claim to be Caracalla's son, and the legions went along because they wanted it to be true. He looked a bit like Caracalla and they didn't care much for Caracalla' successor. [1]

A century later, the Tetrarchy went to pieces when the soldiers of Maximian and Constantius Chlorus opted for the sons of their late rulers rather than the "Caesars" who were supposed to be next in line.


[1] Could I recommend Alfred Duggan's novel Family Favourites? Fiction of course, but paints a vivid picture of the era.
 
Last edited:
Was there really a choice?

A lot of soldiers regarded hereditary succession as "only natural" and would be apt to go for the Emperor's son in any case. Elagabalus got the Purple on the strength of a palpably false claim to be Caracalla's son, and the legions went along because they wanted it to be true. He looked a bit like Caracalla and they didn't care much for Caracalla' successor. [1]

A century later, the Tetrarchy went to pieces when the soldiers of Maximian and Constantius Chlorus opted for the sons of their late rulers rather than the "Caesars" who were supposed to be next in line.


[1] Could I recommend Alfred Duggan's novel Family Favourites? Fiction of course, but paints a vivid picture of the era.
No I mean, he should have taken his own advice and killed Caracalla and Geta himself. He knew they were bad news. He had hoped that taking them on campaign to Britain would help straighten them out, but it didn't work.

And I completely understand why he didn't kill them-they were his sons after all. But I just find him saying Aurelius should have killed Commodus the second he got the chance, and then not taking his own advice, a little hypocritical.
 
The latest POD to avoid the end of Roman domination of the Mediterranean is probably to have the attempted reconquest of Egypt in the 640s enjoy a lot more success than it did.

People, I asked for Roman, not Byzantine. You can point out all the similarities you want, they were two different empires.
 
They were the same empire. Mostly judging from the fact that they were called the Roman Empire throughout their existence...

The name does not mean they were the same. The Byzantine were at first Romans but by the time of the Crusades they were Greeks. Therefore, we shall discuss PoDs for the survival of Ancient Rome that lasted till 476 AD.:mad:
 
The name does not mean they were the same. The Byzantine were at first Romans but by the time of the Crusades they were Greeks. Therefore, we shall discuss PoDs for the survival of Ancient Rome that lasted till 476 AD.:mad:
Your thread, your rules I guess. Still though, at least up until Heraclius, they were completely Roman.
 
As I implied myself, there is no guarantee. Also, such a distinct change would need to be formulated, propagated and take root. [This did actually NOT occur.] The era of the adoptive emperors (in such a scenario at least 83 years, once Commodus is butterflied perhaps more) should be long enough.

Once that is done, the chances of ursupation fall markedly. Note that such crises usually fall into succession crises, with the exception of the mid-3rd century which saw a complete erosion of Imperial legitimacy.

And I disagree strongly with that (on the chances of usurpation). Let's say you have a century and a half of adoptive emperors who have been of at least reasonable ability and popularity - Constantine VII (post-classical Rome, I know, but he's a good example) will do.

Along comes someone like (Whether we count the "Byzantine" era as Roman, they're recognizable people) Michael VI, and the general Isaac Comnenus.

The army is going to have a lot more love for Isaac than Michael. What do?

Saying that the system prevents having anyone like Michael in the first place . . . ha ha.

The way I fleshed out the concept makes clear, that at any point of time (as was actually only the case during the end of Nerva's reign and during the reign of Antoninus Pius) a well-regarded man (enjoying, at least initially, the trust of the Emperor and of the Senate) would be the earmarked successor. He would be in a very strong and legitimate position. Also, by decisively denying the possibilities of the own-offspring, the position of adopted emperor becomes a (remote) career possibility for generals such as Traianus.
No more than the legitimacy of any Porphyrogenitus.

This concept would also markedly lower the chances that the elites of the empire see themselves driven to violently depose an at least instable personality (Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus); thus creating new crises of legitimacy.
How? I missed that part completely, I'm afraid.

Thus, POD 1 might be that Hadrian and Antoninus Pius not only work out the concept (which is close to what had been decided upon in 137/138), but also codify it as a central law of the principate, the LEX IMPERII OPTIMI.
POD 2 needs to be Marc Aurel adhering to this principle by never taking his own son into account, but constantly having a qualified and legitimate successor-in-waiting (as he was himself).
Laws are broken by usurpers all the time. Why is this going to be particularly effective at deterring them?

Frankly, adoptive emperors sounds like a weak method of avoiding poor emperors and utterly useless at avoiding usurpers.
 
Last edited:
Your thread, your rules I guess. Still though, at least up until Heraclius, they were completely Roman.

Actually they were typically romans till the reign of Leo VI... Leo VI was the Emperor who abolished the last remnants of Roman administration aka consuls, quaestors etc.

As for the legions they are a problem within succession... As soon as Sulla and Caesar showed them how can one man grasp power with force using the army there was no turning back...
 
Actually they were typically romans till the reign of Leo VI... Leo VI was the Emperor who abolished the last remnants of Roman administration aka consuls, quaestors etc.

As for the legions they are a problem within succession... As soon as Sulla and Caesar showed them how can one man grasp power with force using the army there was no turning back...
Sulla was the first sure, but between him and Caesar also Marius and Pompey make a similar use of their army, and after Caesar also Octavian make the same thing....
 
Top