Succession of the Roman emperors

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?
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
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?

De facto it was for the most part, however it went further than that. Look at the Macedonian Dynasty for example and the concept of the Porphyrogenitus/Porphyrogenita when one can certainly argue it was even de jure. And then you have the Comnenian and Palaeologian Dynasties of Roman Emperors, the last one being the dynasty that survived the longest.

It's true the final fall of the Roman Empire was in a large part down to the effects of civil wars between claimants, but that happened even within competing members of the family, and even when there was a clear succession - motivated by disgruntlement about the reigning monarch's rule. There was always a tradition of an Emperor who was perceived as being a poor ruler being a legitimate target for deposition from the ranks of the military, the bureaucracy, the military aristocracy, and other family members - a hangover from the past that never really went away. Rather similar to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven when one thinks about it...


Sargon
 
Rather similar to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven when one thinks about it...

Except that in China there was a stronger sense of hereditary monarchy- therefore even under a weak emperor or two in succession, the entire system could be relied to go on ticking for a generation or two because the bureaucrats, eunuchs and military would just go on doing things as normal- i.e. building up their own power bases "in the Name of the Emperor". It was only if you got quite a few weak Emperors in a row that the Mandate would be lost- things would start going to hell because by this point the factionalism would have led to horrible corruption, the peasants would start rising and All-Under-Heaven would dissolve into chaos.

The Romans, however, didn't have this few-generation buffer, so to speak. Since they didn't really have any proper rules of succession and needed to maintain the facade that the position of Imperator was not hereditary, all it took was one weak Emperor for the various generals to start rallying their legions and marching on Rome.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
Except that in China there was a stronger sense of hereditary monarchy- therefore even under a weak emperor or two in succession, the entire system could be relied to go on ticking for a generation or two because the bureaucrats, eunuchs and military would just go on doing things as normal- i.e. building up their own power bases "in the Name of the Emperor". It was only if you got quite a few weak Emperors in a row that the Mandate would be lost- things would start going to hell because by this point the factionalism would have led to horrible corruption, the peasants would start rising and All-Under-Heaven would dissolve into chaos.

The Romans, however, didn't have this few-generation buffer, so to speak. Since they didn't really have any proper rules of succession and needed to maintain the facade that the position of Imperator was not hereditary, all it took was one weak Emperor for the various generals to start rallying their legions and marching on Rome.

All very true. I was just noting that there was some similarity though. Bad events in Eastern Roman reigns had quite a lot of effect on the people and made them wonder about if their leader had lost the protection or confidence of God. For a deeply religious people, they were also pretty superstitious as well and retained some pagan beliefs and practices...such that Justinian II Rhinotmetos made laws attempting to crack down on them at his Concilium Quinisextum.


Sargon
 
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?
How would one have been established, anyway? Ultimately, the Principate didn't do much to really put the genie back into the bottle: during the last century of the republic, violence and civil war had been pretty firmly established as the best way to attain power in Rome. Octavian/Augustus only papered over this issue by making the Princeps the head of the army, and, therefore, strongest of the strong men.

This worked to make political transitions easier, but only when the heir was made clear and obvious before the death of the previous emperor. When the line of succession was murky, as was the case after Nero's death, or after Commodus, or after Severus Alexander, the resulting civil wars weren't ultimately much different from the struggles of the late republic. I'm not really sure how you could systematize the succession beyond making sure that, a) your reigning emperor didn't off his entire family, a la Nero, and b) he adopted a heir when he didn't have a biological one handy, a la the Antonines. And since that's a fairly imprecise system, you're still likely to have breakdowns from time to time.

I'm really not criticizing the premise, since I think it's a good question. But I'm lacking the imagination to see a way out of the problem: to break the military strangehold on Roman power, you pretty much need to have the office of emperor be a less militarized role. But, Rome being what it was, if the emperor's not a military dynast, he's not going to have the effective imperium / auctoritas to impose order in the first place. To impose a more effective system of succession, you ultimately need some sort of power capable of imposing order even in the temporary absence of emperor. And I'm drawing a blank about where such power is going to come from following the death of the Senate as an effective governing body at the end of the second century BCE.
 
What cdaug said: the power of the Princeps rested on the Army, which was personally loyal. As long as the army's loyalty is to an individual rather than the state, it will be a matter of whoever has that loyalty will have the power to become Princeps - any rules of succession are meaningless if the army doesn't pay attention to them.

And the problem of course was that it was the front-line generals that earned thae Army's loyalty more so than the Emperor back in Rome (simplification). So if the Emperor dies, who gets the support, the guy that has led you into battle and earned you loot and treasure, or some brat in the capital that has bever lifted a gladius?
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
What cdaug said: the power of the Princeps rested on the Army, which was personally loyal. As long as the army's loyalty is to an individual rather than the state, it will be a matter of whoever has that loyalty will have the power to become Princeps - any rules of succession are meaningless if the army doesn't pay attention to them.

And the problem of course was that it was the front-line generals that earned thae Army's loyalty more so than the Emperor back in Rome (simplification). So if the Emperor dies, who gets the support, the guy that has led you into battle and earned you loot and treasure, or some brat in the capital that has bever lifted a gladius?

This may well apply to the early Empire, but in the later Empire it is less clear cut.

Look at Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus for example. He was steadily demoted in his position of becoming an ever lower co-emperor, despite being the legitimate one in the Macedonian Dynastic line by the actions of his stepfather and general Romanus I Lecapenus, who was not of the imperial line and appointed three of his sons as simultaneous co-emperors. Despite all that, the people still came out for Constantine and eventually deposed the whole lot when they thought his position was really in danger from the Lecapenoi. Which of course illustrated loyalty to the hereditary ruling house, despite Constantine being in the background, and never really having done anything of note apart from existing up to that point.

In this case people power did it, despite Romanus being a popular general in the army.


Sargon
 
You also have to look at The Roman mindset especially in the latter period. Even with some "orderly" or "conscribed" method of succession there would still have been a lot of political infighting by those in or closely connected with The Imperial Household to be in and at the top of that orderly succession.

Given their mindset I'm not sure you would have gained much.

I think what hurt The Roman Empire even more, again especially in its latter period, was the mindset that society had for generations and generations and for ages and ages, especially among the upper classes.
 
Actually in Roman and Byzantine times various "factions" considered themselves as controllers of the Imperial succesion...
1st. Early Roman and Byzantine Emperors preferred the adoption system... find a relative (or in some cases a non-relative) who has some military/adminstrative skills adopt him and name him their heir...
2nd. The army preferred the biological succesion... on the event of the Emperor's death the army supported the late Emperor's son or someone closely related to him... (Actually this fully worked in Byzantine times but we can see it in Roman times too...)
3rd. The Senate considered herself as the only body empowered to elect the new Emperor...
4th. Some greedy and power hungry General takes his troops marches to the capital and slaughters everyone proclaiming himself Emperor...
This combination resulted in numerous times to have at least 4 or more candidates for the Purple fighting each other... So no clear line of succession...
 
Top