What if Marcus Aurelius had a sane son?

But that doesn't address my main point, which is that there were cultural changes and evolutions in other places - in some, greater than the changes that took place between the early Eastern Roman Empire and medieval Eastern Roman Empire - yet we have no problem calling them by the same name. We examine a polity that continued to exist in an unbroken line for centuries and say, "Well, things changed over the years so we're going to refer to it by a term that was never used to describe it contemporaneously."

If a distinction needs to be made, it's between Ancient Rome and Medieval Rome; there never existed at any point in history a man called the "Byzantine Emperor".

The problem is that the pendulum is maybe goiing a bit far on other side - while 'Byzance' is not Gibbon's 'travesty', MUCH changed more than said maybe, and evolved, so it's not anymore the empire of old on a few levels.

Underplaying those changes.

Again, Romans maybe, yeah. But Latins, not. And the slow evolution, changes like heightened cesaropapism and all... well...
 
I don't know. Suppose that over the next two or three centuries, economic and political power in the United States shifted radically to the West Coast. Then suppose that the 'original' America (say a portion of land that includes all thirteen colonies) is conquered by a foreign power. During those several centuries, the government of America has already moved much of its apparatus and infrastructure to L.A., to the extent that the President spends much of his time there, with Washington D.C. relegated to his VP. The east coast falls with relatively little fanfare given the magnitude of the situation, and the government 'officially' moves to L.A., essentially confirming what was already a political reality.

Do they speak an entirely different language in LA? Do they have an entirely different military system, government structure, and political culture?

This is also beside the point you are fighting a strawman. I never said moving east was the change, I said the Heraklian reforms where the change.
 
Whoever the guy prefers and regardless of his wife's fertility issues, there's ways around it. He'd just adopt one or more of his relatives and groom them for succession, seems typical for the Nervan dynasty. Trajan liked boys and Hadrian liked boys and Marcus Aurelius maybe also though as you can see not exclusively (which is how Commodus happened). The succession run was pretty good nonetheless because the adoption choices were solid and well-groomed for the job. Commodus clearly wasn't.


But does this fix the problem or only postpone it?

Sooner or later some Emperor is going to have a son, and in the history of dynasties there's nothing unusual about a good or even great ruler being succeeded by a nonentity or worse.

And note that one general had made a bid for the throne even during Marcus' lifetime. If Avidius Cassius had waited five years he might have been the successor. Sounds like the Legions were already getting a bit big for their britches, and that maybe Septimius Severus was a symptom more than a cause.
 
Whoever the guy prefers and regardless of his wife's fertility issues, there's ways around it. He'd just adopt one or more of his relatives and groom them for succession, seems typical for the Nervan dynasty. Trajan liked boys and Hadrian liked boys and Marcus Aurelius maybe also though as you can see not exclusively (which is how Commodus happened). The succession run was pretty good nonetheless because the adoption choices were solid and well-groomed for the job. Commodus clearly wasn't.
How is that any different than what I said?

Unless you mean that even if he has a son he should still adopt if the boy is incompetent. I mean, from a utilitarian perspective that's great but its asking a lot from a human being to coldly sentence your son to certain death and go down in history a monster.
 
Is there any way that Marcus Aurelius could adopt an competent heir and Commodus would still survive?
Could Commodus survive if he was allowed to leave Rome and live as a private person on the outskirts of the empire?
 
Last edited:
And note that one general had made a bid for the throne even during Marcus' lifetime. If Avidius Cassius had waited five years he might have been the successor. Sounds like the Legions were already getting a bit big for their britches, and that maybe Septimius Severus was a symptom more than a cause.

IIRC, Avidius Cassius mistook the letters Aurelius's wife was sending him to be saying that Aurelius was already dead. His wife wanted Cassius to secure the throne for Commodus when Aurelius died. AFAIK, Aurelius wanted to come to terms and pardon Cassius, but never got the chance.
 
Is there any way that Marcus Aurelian could adopt an competent heir and Commodus would still survive?
Could Commodus survive if he was allowed to leave Rome and live as a private person on the outskirts of the empire?


Alternatively could Commodus be joint ruler with someone more able?

My impression of him is that he wasn't exactly a workaholic, and might have been content with the ceremonial honours as "Public Emperor Number One" while someone else did the hard part.
 
How is that any different than what I said?

Unless you mean that even if he has a son he should still adopt if the boy is incompetent. I mean, from a utilitarian perspective that's great but its asking a lot from a human being to coldly sentence your son to certain death and go down in history a monster.

Well, there is that. Hadrian had to swiftly defeat and kill his one credible rival, Marcus Aurelius also had rivals before he was secure in his emperorship. Trajan just muscled his way into being adopted.

It'd be hard to groom someone who would likely have to kill off your biological son when you died, I guess. But this is a scenario where Commodus is already gone, his brother is Emperor while still young, doesn't manage to get kids for whatever reason, adopts someone while still in his say 30s. I'm just saying that the wife's barrenness if it was that isn't an insurmountable obstacle....in the long run.

If Commodus is still around and the only choice, yeah, Marcus Aurelius doesn't have a lot of choices before him. If he had BOTH sons alive, maybe Commodus could be junior co-emperor, but he'd probably make a bid for the top at some point and his brother will have to get rid of him. And that's really bad optics.
 
Alternatively could Commodus be joint ruler with someone more able?

My impression of him is that he wasn't exactly a workaholic, and might have been content with the ceremonial honours as "Public Emperor Number One" while someone else did the hard part.

So he needs a Marcus Aurelius to counteract his inner Lucius Verres?

edit: Also, in the event of Marcus Aurelius having no sons, Avidius Cassius is likely the man he's going to adopt. His wife favored Avidius, and ITTL Avidius isn't going to revolt on the mistaken pretenses that Aurelius is dead (since he'd be the heir anyway).
 
It'd be hard to groom someone who would likely have to kill off your biological son when you died, I guess. But this is a scenario where Commodus is already gone, his brother is Emperor while still young, doesn't manage to get kids for whatever reason, adopts someone while still in his say 30s. I'm just saying that the wife's barrenness if it was that isn't an insurmountable obstacle....in the long run.
Which is what I said.

If he lives into his 60s or 70s he might go through a few adoptive heirs like Augustas, which could be bad or good depending on how competent the last one standing turns out to be.
 
Top