What if another Emperor than Commodus?

I have recently been listening to the "The History of Rome" podcast by Mike Duncan and during one of the episodes of Marcus Aurelius it was mentioned that the emperor Commodus had an older twin by the name of Titus Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus who died at age four.

So what I was wondering was what would the effects have been if Titus survived to become Emperor of Rome instead of Commodus. Of course due to the early death of Titus next to nothing is known about him or his future personality, but what I would like to know is what could someone an emperor who took more after his father Marcus Aurelius do in the cicumstances that Commodus faced.

So what would the effects of a competent emperor have been, would it have prevented the Crisis of the 3rd Century?
 
So what would the effects of a competent emperor have been, would it have prevented the Crisis of the 3rd Century?

No chance. The 3rd century crisis happenend, when the structural deficits in military, economy, politics and society of the roman empire and principate became obvious, once the empire came under pressure at many fronts at the same time.

No way a single emperor has enough time to change all these structures in just a few decades.

Commodus was not the problem. Afterwards we have a rather short civil war, similar to the civil war after Nero. Nothing earthshattering. And Septimus Severus and his dynasty did not bad. Well, with some of his decisions he became part of the problem. But thats nothing new. Most emperors (if not all including Augustus), did not bad, and on the other hand they intensified some longterm detrimental processes.
 
Last edited:
Top