What if Augustus had a son with Scribonia instead of a daughter as OTL. His immediate heir would obviously be his son. If we go further and say his direct descendants go on to be the next few emperors and do well, what would be the effects (if there are any) on the Roman Empire? Would an Emperor's legitimacy come from being related to Augustus' line and would it effect the chances of generals revolting to try to become Emperor?
WI: Augustus has a son?
- Thread starter NthBelisarius
- Start date
Livia would probably arrange another murder.
Two of Augustus's direct descendents did become emperors IOTL:
Caligula - great grandson
Nero - great, great grandson
It seems that Augustus used up all his luck to become Caesar and had none left to ensure suitable descendents.
Two of Augustus's direct descendents did become emperors IOTL:
Caligula - great grandson
Nero - great, great grandson
It seems that Augustus used up all his luck to become Caesar and had none left to ensure suitable descendents.
It'd change the line of succession away from Tiberius (who Augustus never wanted anyway).
This would mean no Caligula and no Nero, and potentially more importantly no Claudius.
That said, after Augustus, with a brief respite with Claudius, it went to hell in a hand basket pretty fast anyway until Vespasian. Who knows, it might not have made much of a difference as long as some half competent Flavian was waiting in the wings to take over when a Julio-Claudian died childless.
Or....we might still be living in the Julio-Claudian dynasty now. Augustus was a pretty smart guy, so he probably would have been able to train a heir well (this issue was, of course that they kept dying and he had to plump for Tiberius).
In general (with the exception of Alexander Severus) young and inexperienced men make horrible Emperors. If Augustus was able to have a son and still survive into his 70s he may well have founded a better dynasty. After all, in retrospect, the early project of the Empire was to arrive at the Antonine era with its (albeit accidental) non-nepotistic "choose your own successor" model. Get there early and entrench it and you would have a very different time throughout the third century (No Aurelien though, which would be a shame).
This would mean no Caligula and no Nero, and potentially more importantly no Claudius.
That said, after Augustus, with a brief respite with Claudius, it went to hell in a hand basket pretty fast anyway until Vespasian. Who knows, it might not have made much of a difference as long as some half competent Flavian was waiting in the wings to take over when a Julio-Claudian died childless.
Or....we might still be living in the Julio-Claudian dynasty now. Augustus was a pretty smart guy, so he probably would have been able to train a heir well (this issue was, of course that they kept dying and he had to plump for Tiberius).
In general (with the exception of Alexander Severus) young and inexperienced men make horrible Emperors. If Augustus was able to have a son and still survive into his 70s he may well have founded a better dynasty. After all, in retrospect, the early project of the Empire was to arrive at the Antonine era with its (albeit accidental) non-nepotistic "choose your own successor" model. Get there early and entrench it and you would have a very different time throughout the third century (No Aurelien though, which would be a shame).
Last edited:
We can look at how Augustus would train his heirs by how Gaius and Lucius turned out-and the way they turned out, it seems like he was horrible at grooming children to be his heirs.
Theodosius II wasn't too shabby. Though, you are correct. Also, Alexander Severus' inexperience really showed with how he repeatedly failed to see the signs that his army was getting ready to just about have enough of him.
Theodosius II wasn't too shabby. Though, you are correct. Also, Alexander Severus' inexperience really showed with how he repeatedly failed to see the signs that his army was getting ready to just about have enough of him.
In addition, his mother probably had a very strong influence on him (I think that was him...). Basically there were caveats that mean that even he couldn't simply be called an effective youthful Emperor.
I believe it was his sister if I remember correctly. Then again, Julia Maemia also had a huge influence over Alexander Severus (plus they organized a council of advisors to "advise" Alexande on what to do).
I wonder if having a son of his own would be prejudicial to him as he was setting up the Principate? Historically his duumvirate with Agrippa was reminiscent of Republican models and helped him look like less of a monarch - him giving his ring to Agrippa instead of Marcellus was a particularly good look for him. With a crown prince all his own, I could see either or both being assassinated or disposed of once the Romans caught wind of any kind of hereditary succession taking place.
Na, they'd been through that with Caesar and it was massively unpopular. If by "Romans" you mean previously powerful patricians, then they probably knew what was going on, but that he wasn't to be challenged.
Also, he specifically kept all the senate and republican trappings to make it look like he was "first citizen" rather than king. It wasn't until Domitian that they actually started demanding to be referred to as various fancy-pants names while still alive.
My understanding of his intentions was that he desperately wanted to pass his "Princips" title onto a male heir of his family. He was probably careful enough to be able to have a prince without the average pleb thinking he was a king.
(Edit: by this time, after 100 years of civil strife, the average pleb really wanted a king)
(Second edit: Read my posts with a pinch of salt, I'll generally assume that the divine Augustus was capable of anything)
Which brings into question-could powerful senators had ordered the death of Agrippa Posthumus?
I was always taught it was either Livia or Tiberius who ordered his death, or both, to get rid of any rivals to Tiberius.
As to any of his blood being seen as a crown prince and being assassinated, what exactly were Lucius and Gaius then if not crown princes of his blood, being his grandsons?
As to any of his blood being seen as a crown prince and being assassinated, what exactly were Lucius and Gaius then if not crown princes of his blood, being his grandsons?
Well I personally think there's a chance Augustus may have ordered it-which may have been exactly why he made the trip to see Agrippa Posthumus shortly before his death. He may have wanted to see if he had changed or if he was s till dangerous (I believe Posthumus was planning to stir up trouble upon Augustus' death).
I do not think that there would be too many effects on the Roman Empire.
Actually an Emperor's legitimacy came from being related to Augustus' line for some time after the death of Augustus. And this tradition did not come to a stop because of shortage of Augustus' descendants.
It is a law of nature that the descendants of a great and talented man are not necessarily eminent, distinguished politicians or/and generals. Some of them are just dumb.
But the Roman political reality of the I-II centuries A.D. was that you have to be good if you want to rule the Empire. No, you'd better be very good for under certain circumstances even quite sensible competent emperors were assassinated or overthrown.
The Roman imperial statehood grew out of republican tradition. The Romans never liked the idea that their state should be inherited like father's estate. If there was a prominent politician or outstanding general not related to the emperor that would be good for the Empire and every Roman if that man got the high power; that would be fair.
And I am afraid nothing could change that Roman mentality.
Even if Augustus had a capable son who succeeded him and then grandson and great grandson, all of them gifted personalities of considerable talent. There was such thing as a loyalty of the Roman army to the victorious general irrespective if that general was related to the emperor's line or not. And that loyalty was stronger than their loyalty to the ruling dynasty.
They came a lot later though. In the crucial period combatting Antony and then consolidating power after Actium, Augustus had only his nephew Marcellus, who he famously disregarded when in the throes of death.
You overlook Roman notions of patronage and clientele. The oaths which were taken by the provinces to Augustus and his heirs basically bound the entire Empire to him as his clientela, with the obligation to look to his family's well being and support them politically etc.
Perhaps then, Augustus has a son by Livia after Nero Claudius is born. Apparently she had a miscarriage, so that could not happen and the baby be male. Improbable (not impossible, these are Romans after all 
) that Livia would then seek to get rid of the baby, and hopefully Tiberius and Nero (if he doesn't die) will be loyal to their half brother.
) that Livia would then seek to get rid of the baby, and hopefully Tiberius and Nero (if he doesn't die) will be loyal to their half brother.With all due respect there was an oath to Augustus himself but there were never any oaths taken to Augustus' heirs IIRC.
You are right there was a strong affection of the Romans, the army and provinces to Augustus' line. The Empire would be happy to be ruled by his descendant but only on condition if the heir was good. That's a great difference from a pure monarchical tradition of hereditary power.
Surely that doesn't mean they can't develop one. Didn't France develop hereditary monarchy from elected one by always having strong heirs who are recognised as the heir during the ruling king's lifetime?
Particularly in Asia Minor entire cities and communities made oaths, inscriptions, etc, to Augustus, Gaius and Lucius, for their genii and health, and later on to Tiberius etc too.
Considering freedmen were bound to their masters regardless of capability, and considering that the manner in which the Roman world was bound to Augustus was very similar to the relationship between a freedman and his former master, the heirs of Augustus would reasonably expect the obedience, financial and political support of..well, the whole Roman world, given how the entire Empire was a beneficiary of Augustus' euergetism.
Augustus certainly paved the way by having Agrippa and then Tiberius set up as his junior co-rulers in his own lifetime.
Err...I distinctly remember reading in Tacitus (I believe it was the Histories) that there were yearly oaths that were taken by the soldiers, swearing their loyalty to the current emperor.
Also, the effect the military had in making or breaking emperors is largely overblown until the 3rd century-there were only two cases of serious civil war prior to the third century-the year of the four emperors and the 5 emperors. I guess you could count Vindex's revolt as well, but all that did was spark the year of the 4 emperors really, so it can be considered a part of it in a way.
edit: Also I disagree that the Romans disliked dynasty's. The Romans, I believe, wanted stable dynasties-it was just when the emperor was either insane (see Caligula), childish and stupid (Nero) or just really pissed off the Senate (Domitian) that they tried to shake things up.
And even with Caligula, it is telling that they stuck by Claudius. Claudius was by and large considered a fool and an idiot who would amount to nothing-yet interestingly enough, they still gave him a chance.