The children of the emperor?

What happened after the death of a Roman emperor if he had many children?

I think in most cases the successful heir poisoned/murdered his siblings.
Was there a precedent - besides Titus and Domitian - for a reconciliation between the children?
 
Well this isn't necessarily children, but family members in general: The Julio-Claudians had many relatives in the Senate, and at least until Nero, they co-existed pretty peacefully. You mentioned Titus and Domitian, there's also Aurelius and Verres and IIRC Valens was Valentinian's brother.

But the way I see it, they could co-exist peacefully unless they are the Caracalla and Geta type. Tiberius and Drusus were another brother duo as well that worked well. I also think Rome having an ambiguous succession would help as well. The older brother getting the title of princeps and all the power that comes with it and maybe him giving his brothers similar powers as well (similar to what Augustus did with Agrippa, Tiberius, and Drusus). Of course if the brothers never got along, then that would cause problems like it did with Caracalla and Geta. For the most part though, I think this would be better.
 
Well this isn't necessarily children, but family members in general: The Julio-Claudians had many relatives in the Senate, and at least until Nero, they co-existed pretty peacefully. You mentioned Titus and Domitian, there's also Aurelius and Verres and IIRC Valens was Valentinian's brother.

But the way I see it, they could co-exist peacefully unless they are the Caracalla and Geta type. Tiberius and Drusus were another brother duo as well that worked well. I also think Rome having an ambiguous succession would help as well. The older brother getting the title of princeps and all the power that comes with it and maybe him giving his brothers similar powers as well (similar to what Augustus did with Agrippa, Tiberius, and Drusus). Of course if the brothers never got along, then that would cause problems like it did with Caracalla and Geta. For the most part though, I think this would be better.

Thanks for the info!
Do you think a well-defined succession law would have prevented some of these? Of course not all of them, because - as you mentioned - it depends on the personality.
 
Thanks for the info!
Do you think a well-defined succession law would have prevented some of these? Of course not all of them, because - as you mentioned - it depends on the personality.

Roman Republic had rather clear rules about how rulers suceeded themselves, and it didn't prevented it to turn Cluedocracy as Principate did.
The issue isn't with rules, it's about enforcing them against a society that is not that really about it.
 
Roman Republic had rather clear rules about how rulers suceeded themselves, and it didn't prevented it to turn Cluedocracy as Principate did.
The issue isn't with rules, it's about enforcing them against a society that is not that really about it.

Yea, I think you are right.
 
Also, one of the things that lead to the implosion during the year of 4 emperors was that Nero had killed off almost all the remaining Julio-Claudians. The legions liked stability and they liked dynasties, and the Julio-Claudians had been the only dynasty, so for many people, they were the only ones that could rule Rome. If you have a close Julio-Claudian adult relative a la Claudius still alive by the time Nero dies, there is a good chance I think he would succeed Nero.

Anyway, I got away from my point-having male family members of the ruling dynasty alive-brothers especially-could only be a good thing I think as long as they aren't hostile to the one on the throne.
 
The romans had a clear succession rule: The senate gave a bundle of special rights to an aristocrat, which makes him a princeps. The people of Rome and the legions acclaim. So much for theory.

Egon Flaig ("Den Kaiser herausfordern") calls them the three aceptance groups. You need the support of all three groups best case, even if the support of the legions would be enough for a start. So the senate could not enforce its decision, if not enough senatorial legates of legions are supporting the senate. Remember, legates were politicians and vice versa.

Unfortunately, there was not ONE army group or instance, which was strong enough to decide unopposedly. I guess one way to stabilize the roman system is to install such an instance, e.g. an huge and powerful central field army. But now, there is almost no way to avoid, that the leader of this army is the successor or even usurps himself, if he does not agree with the emperor or does not want to wait anymore.

The relatively stable adoptive system in the 2nd century was something similar. Nerva was a poor senator, and adopted Trajan, the strongest armyleader immediately. He was old, so Trajan could wait easily. Fortunately no other army group disagreed. Trajan had no co-emperor afaik, but after his death his wife immediately claimed, that he had adopted Hadrian, the leader of the biggest army, lately. Again lucky Rome. Antoninus and Aurelius made everything right now, they always had a designated successor and co-emperor.

Commodus is seen as a bad emperor, but that does not matter. He had no co-emperor and so the roman luck ended.

However as the late empire show, having always a co-emperor does not prevent usurpations. But even if the list of usurpers in the 4th century is long, successful usurpations against the prime Augustus were pretty seldom.
 
Last edited:
I've seen you use that word in several threads now, and Google searching only leads back to your AH posts. I'd like to know what it means, please.

Ah, it's a word of mine.

Cluedo-cracy. Rule by Cluedo.

"Got it! It was Brutus, in the Senate, with a Knive!"
"Damn! I would have sword it was Antoninus, in the Atrium, with an amphora!"

At some points (Late Republic, Interregnum,etc. not exclusive), the most regular way to access power or to replace elite was to murder your way to them. And then kill them. Before being killed.
 
Top