Thanks to everyone for replying !
As for Verus, I meant ...not really militarily inept. More like justa "bad seed".
For example....the Five Good Emperors....Rome is happy etc etc and then bam you get Commodus. Fighting gladiators and generally making a fool of himself. He's murdered, the Guard steps in (again) and takes over the process.
IMO it wasn't the acting like a buffoon that made the Roman elite and even the imperial court really hate Commodus. It was the fact that for much of his reign Commodus acted like an homicidal maniac who could treat like a beloved and respected underling one day and have you and your family butchered in the worst way possible the next.
What I'M saying is that, because Commodus was so bad, the situation slipped beyond the realm of "decent" politics and became a bloody, financial affair yet again. So, if we put Verus in there, who was mild by comparison to Commodus, as far as antics go...maybe the backlash isn't as severe.
That is, the Guard doesn't want to outright murder him, but let's say for argument's sake there is a general that thinks to himself..."OK, the emperor isn't too bad, but he could party a little less and do a little more defending of the frontier. I think I'm going to stage a coup.." and marches on Rome.
But we aren't talking about the peaceful late 2nd century during which Commodus ruled. The 160s were a trying time for the Romans as they faced series of foreign threats that were able to decisively defeat multiple Roman armies. At the same time they had to deal with a horrible smallpox epidemic that depopulated their towns and cities while massively cutting down on their available manpower. Indeed the next time the Romans faced a situation of comparable seriousness, the empire almost collapsed.
Therefore a Verus who had spent his time living it up while the Parthians were invading the East or while the Germanic tribes were wrecking havoc in Moesia and Pannonia would have found himself challenged pretty quickly by any general competent enough to see off either of these threats much like what happened during the third century crisis.
And again, for argument's sake, let's say Verus isn't so unpopular that this usurper can just walk right in...so maybe they compromise and the Senate names the guy successor.
The thing is for almost the entire history of the Principate, no emperor sitting in Rome ever survived an invasion by one of the legions. Italy was so demilitarised that the only time an Italian invasion had ever been stopped was when the emperor Maximinus Thrax marched down from the Upper Danube during the year of the Six Emperors and even then the only thing that stopped Maximinus was a knife in the back from his disgruntled troops. So basically something like that happening is going to be a long shot.
In this fashion then, the line of adoption continues, and we still have able leadership.
Does this make sense? That a less noisome emperor might make the reaction to him less violent? That was the idea. Not saying the above scenario is the way it would play out, just illustrating my theory. In a physical way, it kinda makes sense. ..to me anyway. Ha..
Logically speaking what you suggest seems pretty obvious and highly likely but the Roman Emperors,even the less capable ones, had a thing about dropping everything to go and squash any attempt at usurpation. This only changed during Gallienus' reign and that was because he couldn't move from one room to another without somehow sparking off a rebellion and so was too busy to worry about the Gauls or Palmyra.
It's a possibility. The cycle was working fairly well until Aurelius had his son inherit. If they could have a precedent of a strong general establishing the succession in such a way when there's a poor emperor.
If you think about it wasn't that precedent already set by Nerva ? Sure he wasn't a bad emperor but he wasn't a spectacularly good one either. Indeed the only reason he is included in the 5 good emperors is because he stuck the landing so to speak with Trajan. Although reinforcing said precedent in a more overt way is by no means a bad thing.
stevep said:
The problem is however that under such conditions there are a number of dangers.
a) The emperor [or supporters] could seek to restore his prestige and position by having the general removed and hence there is an incentive for the general to go the whole way and seize power immediately. This also removes any uncertainty about who's actually in power.
b) It set a precedent for any time when an ambitious general can be persuaded the emperor needs replacing and when he can similarly persuade his troops of the same.
Good points although there might be ways to mitigate this by formalising a way by which a challenge could be handled. Maybe something like an anonymous vote of no confidence in which the Senate, Army and Provincial Governors could have an outlet to vent their concern about the current emperors performance.
Don't follow the anachronism— primaried by a general? What does this mean?
There is another alternative. At one point in Aurelius's rule, after Lucius's death I believe there was a general who had proved highly successful in the east defeating the Parthians. A rumour came around that Aurelius had died and the general decided to make a claim for the purple himself. This would probably have worked and from what I read he would have likely made a good successor. Unfortunately the rumour was false and Aurelius was forced to denounce him as a rebel and I think he died fleeing into exile. At the time Aurelius hadn't announced a successor and possibly if this incident hadn't occurred him might have gone for the general. Alternatively say Aurelius does die and the general gains the throne.
I was referring to Avidus Cassius' rebellion when I attempted my admittedly hackneyed reference to 'being primaried'
As to stevep's scenario, interesting possibility although wouldn't Marcus be wary of threatening his son's future safety while at the same time as rewarding a man who had just betrayed him ? Although it might be cool if Marcus tried to pull a Diocletian and make Cassius responsible for the east while he ran the west. Then when it became time to retire, maybe Marcus could force Cassius to retire as well so that Commodus and maybe Cassius' son could succeed them.
Wasn't Lucius Verus becoming co-Emperor because of Marcus' request...?
So "No Emperor Marcus Aurelius" means "No Emperor Lucius Verus", didn't it...?
With no brilliant Marcus waiting in the wings, Antoninus Pius would have been expected to adopt Lucius. If he doesn't, anyone who succeeds Pius will have to deal with the fact that Lucius' father was originally supposed to be emperor before he died. Thus Lucius would have had as much a claim to the purple as any of Pius' successor. So any attempt to go around Lucius would have made some kind of civil or at least palace conflict inevitable.