WI Drusus the Younger Lives
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
@SlyDessertFox Well, I was thinking more along reasons they could rather than why they would; namely, a far better position for the imperial treasury (the hard work of Tiberius is continued by his son rather than squandered by Caligula), a noticeably less stretched army (due to no invasion, or at least conquest, of Britain), an established precedent (Maurentania and Thracia are still annexed in the 40's), and an opportunity (the discussed maneuvers of Parthia circa 52 CE).
As to why they would, well if the new emperor, unlike Tiberius and Drusus, lacks the mitary glory needed to secure the loyalty of the legions, as Caligula and Claudius did OTL, they may well feel the need that a war in the east should do more than establish a status quo ante bellum. And depending on who the new emperor is, he may also feel an affinity for Mark Anthony; if it's Nero Germanicus say, he may well feel destined to complete his great-grandfather's dream of taking Parthia down a peg.
I may be wrong about all this though, and invite feedback.
As to why they would, well if the new emperor, unlike Tiberius and Drusus, lacks the mitary glory needed to secure the loyalty of the legions, as Caligula and Claudius did OTL, they may well feel the need that a war in the east should do more than establish a status quo ante bellum. And depending on who the new emperor is, he may also feel an affinity for Mark Anthony; if it's Nero Germanicus say, he may well feel destined to complete his great-grandfather's dream of taking Parthia down a peg.
I may be wrong about all this though, and invite feedback.
So, if Drusus succeeds after Tiberius, there should be more years of treasury-strengthening peace. Have you also given thought as to what might happen if Tiberius is persuaded-perhaps by Drusus-to stay in Rome instead of fleeing to Capri?
If anyone could convince Tiberius, it will be Drusus, and I hope he does.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
And yet another minor family point -- we still haven't considered Aemilia Lepida, one time finance to Claudius and sole great-grandchild not born of Agrippina the Elder. She had five children of her own who were about of the same age as the four younger children of Agrippina, meaning there's plenty of pairing potential. (For example, Agrippina the Younger, instead of being married off to Ahenobarbus, might be matched with Marcus Junius Silanus.)
Something else further down the line -- OTL, the Antonine Plague of 165-180 supposedly had its origins in Roman soldiers laying siege to the Parthian capital; even though this was the fourth such Parthian War, was the war of Aurelius different in how deep it went into Parthian territory? If so, does this mean that an earlier Roman success against Persia likewise means an earlier plague; or the timing of that epidemic more dependent on other factors (eg international trade, climate, Roman *health* policy, etc)?
CONSOLIDATE:
Something else further down the line -- OTL, the Antonine Plague of 165-180 supposedly had its origins in Roman soldiers laying siege to the Parthian capital; even though this was the fourth such Parthian War, was the war of Aurelius different in how deep it went into Parthian territory? If so, does this mean that an earlier Roman success against Persia likewise means an earlier plague; or the timing of that epidemic more dependent on other factors (eg international trade, climate, Roman *health* policy, etc)?
CONSOLIDATE:
Forgot about these questions. Aside from Tiberius having a better reputation, the main effect of him staying involved is that the Praetorian Guard doesn't emerge as a governing power in its own right to the extent it did under Sejanus, which, combined with no reigns of terror (which otl saw 29-37 CE), means the semi-republican structures under imperial power are a lot healthier. And that gets into my above question...
Last edited:
It probably had more to do with climate and health policy than anything else. There was apparently a lot of marshland in and around Rome; and marshes are great breeding grounds for all sorts of nasty bugs and viruses. Best thing would be to drain all those marshes, turn them into farmland. Also, maybe Tiberius or Drusus could get around to building that port at Ostia. That might be a good thing to do too...
Apparently Julius Caesar wanted to drain the marshes so it's possible. I don't know if the Romans would have known that would take care of disease though, they would probably just do it for extra farmland or to divert the Tiber where necessary.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
OTL, when Domitian initiated a reign of naked autocracy in 81 CE, he had Caligula for precedent; if no such precedent exists by 80 CE TTL, with the fiction of the republic (that OTL fell after 29 CE) still going more or less strong, does that mean that an emperor openly proclaiming his absolutism and "divinity" is now significantly less likely, regardless of the proclivities of a likely successor?
The project Claudius got around to in 46 CE OTL? Yeah, that makes sense.
Last edited:
Of course. Being a better ruler then Caligula is like easiest thing in history
Also I have a feeling that Caligula if he still goes mad with a larger family he would be just kept in a room of a remote vila for the rest of his life.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I picture Gaius in TTL being a loyal supporter of a particular imperial claimant, somebody who gets his hands dirty with a big grin on his face.
CONSOLIDATE: Small question -- if the Julio-Claudian Dynasty rules in Rome longer, does that change how the empire numbers their years? For example, would the entitling of Augustus (in 27 BCE) be considered Year One TTL, even following the death of Augustus (so that, for example, OTL's 22 CE would be called "the year 49" TTL)? Or does the continuing fiction of the republic mean that the older calendar system (where years are referenced by who was consul) continues unabated?
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Yeah, it does seem to keep coming back to that -- "the fiction of the Republic". OTL, of course, several emperors attacked this arrangement pretty directly, most importantly Caligula and Domitian, ensuring that any future pretense of republican rule would be just that, a pretense; but TTL, without Gaius Germanicus coming to power, it's going to be a bit longer before any emperor tries this. Does this have long term implication for the imperial government and post of princeps, or is the decline into naked autocracy pretty much built into the office?
Last edited:
I would say the decline into autocracy is pretty much guaranteed at this point. But it will probably happen at a much later period, and a lot of the otl Emperors will be butterflied away. For example, it looks like both Caligula and Nero will be butterflied away, along with the Year of Four Emperors; and that means Vespasian will be butterflied away too, along with Titus and Domitian.
Due to that, the butterflies from that alone will be enormous...
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
@vandevere And it's not just avoiding disasterrous emperors like Caligula and Nero; thinking about this further, the OTL evolution of the Principate into the Dominate was a pretty long, complex road as is. I do wonder if Tiberius being succeeded by his son ends up formalizing succession earlier, the way it was under the Flavian and Antonine dynasties of OTL.
All told, Roman imperial autocracy seems like it will be on a much firmer footing in the coming centuries, meaning less likely to see crises like 69 CE or the second century, in turning meaning the empire is unlikely to get desperate enough to do what Diocletian did otl (serfdom, dividing the empire, etc). Though this is all fairly far off still...
All told, Roman imperial autocracy seems like it will be on a much firmer footing in the coming centuries, meaning less likely to see crises like 69 CE or the second century, in turning meaning the empire is unlikely to get desperate enough to do what Diocletian did otl (serfdom, dividing the empire, etc). Though this is all fairly far off still...
Last edited:
It might. But, the Principate might be less autocratic in nature if the succession goes like you think it might. Especially if Drusus persuades Tiberius to stay in Rome instead of going off to Capri.
If that happens, Tiberius will be more in control of what's going on around him, and he'll have a very capable lieutenant in his son too.
In essence, it will be a win/win scenario for the Julio/Claudian Dynasty, and maybe for Tiberius too. As you said, otl Tiberius missed being one of the truly great Emperors by only a hair. Perhaps he'll hit the mark in this tl...
In case you were wondering, Tiberius is my favorite Emperor; mostly because he got a truly bad rap. He's Rome's Richard III, blamed by posterity for things it's pretty clear he never did; and I want a different outcome this time around...
Two likely reasons. First of all, he's not going to be Emperor; and especially not at nineteen years of age. Secondly, he might not catch that illness that almost killed him otl. It's hypothesized that there was some mild brain damage from that, so if he doesn't get ill, he might be okay.
Lastly, it was also hypothesized that his insanity might have been due to PTSD. He was, after all, the only one of his family to survive otl Tiberius' reign, and the Sejanid Reign of Terror. With Sejanus out of the picture, and Gaius' siblings out of danger, there's even less reason for Gaius to go mad...
Edit: Forgot his sisters survived too.,,
There's also the rumors of Tiberius abusing him. Also I should add I don't necessarily think he ever went mad. He certainly was crushed by the pressure of being princeps, in a time before the principate even had a rudimentary bureaucracy and the princeps had an impossible workload. But I wouldn't say he was mad-if you ignore the more fanciful stuff that was likely made up and try to look at everything else from a perspective of an overworked out of his league young emperor who had no time for maintaining the fictions of a republic established by Augustus, you see a coherent if badly misguided ruling strategy.
That is, of course a possibility. He was only nineteen when he became Emperor, and there aren't many teenagers who could shoulder all that responsibility-all that adulation-without going off the rails at least a little bit...
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
How long do you think it will take to devolve? Specifically, how bad do things have to get before Roman armies start jockeying for the imperial position (as happened OTL in 69 and 193)?
It all depends on Drusus and his successors. If his successors tend toward mature, experienced leaders, like Tiberius and Drusus himself in this tl, then all bets are off. It will take actual incompetence to shake the system, and the longer the Principate continues without such a ruler, the harder it will be to change the system.
It was Caligula and Nero who destroyed the Principate and set the Roman armies on that particular path.
Also, while Claudius wasn't all that bad as Emperors go, he was totally inexperienced at ruling, and relied extensively upon the Imperial bureaucracy, which gave his Freedmen, like Narcissus and Pallas.
Thus, the Imperial bureaucracy will be very different from OTL.
Also, since you have effectively neutered the Praetorian Guard, there's less chance of them playing the Imperial game.
If the Principate continues long enough without incompetent rulers, the Butterflies will be too large to predict anything substantive...