In one of history’s ironies, the relatively frail Augustus managed to outlive almost all of his potential successors. Let us suppose that does not happen. Instead, either he dies earlier or they are less unfortunate.
So, upon his death, we have about a half dozen men waiting in the wings, men like Agrippa, Tiberius, Drusus, etc. Its hard to say exactly who would be in this group, since if some live, others might never be born (Marcellus is an obvious example). Young and old, with varying levels of experience but all part of the family in some fashion.
I am intrigued by Adrian Goldsworthy’s supposition that Augustus might have had in mind some sort of oligarchy under an informal College of Princepes, with his extended family governing jointly after his death. I don’t find it particularly likely, given how spectacularly joint rule could fail (look at the Severans and the Constantinians, where blood ties did not stop some pretty brutal infighting), but then again, the Romans did resort to co-Emperors pretty quickly on, and pretty regularly.
So, what do you think is more likely? Relatively peaceful co-rule, or infighting until one is dominant? I’m personally inclined toward the latter, seeing the situation not too different from the Tetrarchy - it worked as long as Diocletian was there to make it work.
So, upon his death, we have about a half dozen men waiting in the wings, men like Agrippa, Tiberius, Drusus, etc. Its hard to say exactly who would be in this group, since if some live, others might never be born (Marcellus is an obvious example). Young and old, with varying levels of experience but all part of the family in some fashion.
I am intrigued by Adrian Goldsworthy’s supposition that Augustus might have had in mind some sort of oligarchy under an informal College of Princepes, with his extended family governing jointly after his death. I don’t find it particularly likely, given how spectacularly joint rule could fail (look at the Severans and the Constantinians, where blood ties did not stop some pretty brutal infighting), but then again, the Romans did resort to co-Emperors pretty quickly on, and pretty regularly.
So, what do you think is more likely? Relatively peaceful co-rule, or infighting until one is dominant? I’m personally inclined toward the latter, seeing the situation not too different from the Tetrarchy - it worked as long as Diocletian was there to make it work.