If a much more concrete method of succession to the imperial throne had been developed, would that have done anything to strengthen the Roman Empire and perhaps stave off its fall for a few more centuries? Since I believe the throne was basically de facto hereditary, I don't understand why a series of laws were not passed to clarify it. I mean, in the UK and most other European monarchies, there is a long list of candidates that spells out who gets the throne next if so and so dies, which basically prevents any dispute since it is always known who gets it. But many times when an emperor died, there wasn't that procedure to follow. It was basically the last general standing gets it.
Now I understand that the first few emperors couldn't do this since he still needed to maintain the pretense that the Republic was alive and well and there was no monarchy.But when that facade did eventually disappear, why was a clear system of succession not established?
Now I understand that the first few emperors couldn't do this since he still needed to maintain the pretense that the Republic was alive and well and there was no monarchy.But when that facade did eventually disappear, why was a clear system of succession not established?