Nope, Caligula was far more insane. Caracalla was cruel, but not insane. Caligula would have lasted months on average during the Dominate era.
Don’t know how many of Caligula’s tales of insanity are actual truth or mere slander.
So the stability of the Principate unlike the Dominate, allowed someone like Claudius to be a stable emperor?
Or, different times require different emperors?
Soldiers do not kill their emperor in defiance of their sub-commanders, knowing they’d be harshly punished/executed afterwards.
Go tell that to Cinna, if not to the countless emperors who got killed by their troops. The rank and file are still human beings, and humans snap eventually.
I can’t believe anyone who knows anything about Roman history believes the ARMY is responsible for political stability. During the Dominate, every time the emperor lost a war, he was offed. Everytime he refused Praetorians another pay raise he was killed. The Army backed usurpers constantly so long as they were promised cash by them. They had ZERO loyalty to any central authority, and enabled/encouraged civil wars constantly.
The army was the backbone of the empire, all that it held it together. Once the Roman army stopped being Roman, the Roman Empire was no more.
Plus, what yoh’re describing is closer to the third century. Pretorians weren’t even around during the Dominate.
You are under the impression the Principate model failed, and the empire was resuscitated by the Dominate equestrian model. You should know as early as Severus, equestrians were replacing senators as governors and legionary commanders, the Senate lost authority even in Italy. It’s thus reasonable to say that Severus’ reforms led to future instability, not that the Principate model failed.
I’m not saying the Principate model failed, Times evolve, things change, and before Alexander Severus got killed, the army was loyal to a dynasty. It’s not really his fault his heirs weren’t on par with the model of emperor required for the times. Also, the power basically went back to the senators with Constantine, during the Dominate, which is the time that goes from Diocletian onwards, not from Septimius, that was still the Principate.
You’ve not addressed my point is that wars and military experience make good generals, not merely serving in the army in peacetime. Thus equestrians became better because they fought extended campaigns, during the Principate, senators fought extended campaigns and were superior.
After Tiberius, few hard campaigns were ever fought. Only Trajan, Corbulo and perhaps Agricola fought a genuinely hard campaign.
It's also important to note that the equestrians vastly outnumbered the Senate which is why they produced more commanders, and thus high quality ones. There were plenty of useless equestrians, but due to their numbers they produced talented ones. Under the Principate, the talented Equestrians would be raised to the Senate, and the same benefit to the empire registered. Because they were novus homo however in the Senate, this discouraged ambition, and reduced chances of usurpation compared to if you eliminated the Senatorial class, and made the Equestrian class just one step from the emperorship.
Or the usurpers would just be senators, as the two Gordians, Pupienus, Balbinus, Decius, Trebonianus, Aemilianus, Valerian and Gallienus. Also, the plural is novi homines.