WI Marcus Aurelius dies before ascending to the purple

Here is a simple WI in keeping the recent spate of Roman threads that we've had. WI Marcus Aurelius dies sometime in the 150s AD ? During this period an aging Antoninus Pius had Marcus follow him around all day teaching him the ins and outs of administering the empire. If say the studious Marcus dies due to maybe an early breakout of the Anotnine Plague, what will Pius' reaction be with regards to succession ? Will he go with his other adopted son and future OTL co-emperor Lucius Verrus or will he decided on someone else completely.

Its pretty obvious that Pius didn't approve of Verrus' favourite pastimes of hunting, gambling and going to the chariot races. That being said Verrus wasn't a full-blown irresponsible hedonist with megalomaniacal tendencies like say Commodus or Nero. In fact when he wasn't busy cheering on the greens, Lucius actually did occasionally take an interest in his duties although his level of competency wasn't all that spectacular.

So do you think that maybe his elder brother's death might finally force Lucius to grow up ? Would this be enough to convince Pius to decalre him Caesar? Or would Pius have sent the still insufferable brat off to some Province or Legionary camp were he could learn about life outside of his pampered existence in the imperial court ? What would the effects be on the how Rome's enemies perceive her in TTL in particular Parthia ?

So please do reply! What do you think would have happened if we had had no Stoic emperor ?
 
I think Verus is likely.

And let's just say he is selected...

WI he gets in, does a mediocre job, and somehow that spurs a line of BETTER emperors? As in, things weren't as bad as under Commodus, so the imperial adoption is able to rebound because the fall wasn't as dramatic...

This of course doesn't take into account the future coups and all....but maybe with the "Fifteen Good Emperors" they have no reason to??
 
I think Verus is likely.

And let's just say he is selected...

WI he gets in, does a mediocre job, and somehow that spurs a line of BETTER emperors? As in, things weren't as bad as under Commodus, so the imperial adoption is able to rebound because the fall wasn't as dramatic...

This of course doesn't take into account the future coups and all....but maybe with the "Fifteen Good Emperors" they have no reason to??

If Verrus becomes the emperor and remains rather mediocre the likelihood that he is going to face a major rebellion is pretty high.

The thing is during Marcus Aurelius' OTL reign, the empire faced an almost mini-crisis period in which first the Parthians and then the Danubian Barbarians challenged the empire while at the same time the Antonine Plague ravaged through the provinces. Luckily for the empire, Marcus as well as Lucius' subordinates turned out to be reasonably proficient and the military threats were seen off . Hell even the record of success wasn't enough to prevent Marcus from being primaried by one of his generals (Yes I am slightly obsessed with American politics).

So like I said there is a good chance that a Verrus with a couple of military defeats to his name might be over thrown by a rebellion. That being said there is nothing preventing his successor from establishing a new dynasty of extremely competent emperors. Although in my opinion the successor dynasty is more likely to follow the path of a pretty good founder followed by a bunch wastrel sons while the army amasses more power in the background as taken by the Severans.
 
Don't follow the anachronism— primaried by a general? What does this mean?

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.

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. 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.

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..
 
Faelan

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. 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.

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.

That might be an easier way of maintain the sequence of good rulers, without having the precedent of a ruler being effectively deposed. In fact it reinforces the importance of having a clear succession, especially if a small civil war has to be fought before Aurelius is succeeded.

Steve
 
Wasn't Lucius Verus becoming co-Emperor because of Marcus' request...?
So "No Emperor Marcus Aurelius" means "No Emperor Lucius Verus", didn't it...?
 
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.
 
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.

keedaman

Ah that was the man!;) What I meant was not that Cassius rebelled and was forgive. Either that Marcus actually died and the other generals [or most of them], accepted Cassius's claim or that no such rumour spreads, so the revolt is not started. [Could be wrong but from what I read Cassius was actually loyal, it was just that having heard, falsely, that Marcus was dead he put his hat into the ring]. Then possibly Marcus, because the state is under pressure, realises he needs a successor more reliable than his son. Possibly even that some scare highlights to him the need for a successor so that if he dies there is stability. [I believe this was after Lucius's death and Commodus was still too young.

Any way this is after the POD you mention in the OP, which precludes Marcus ruling at all, but might be acceptable if you're primarily aim is to have the system of good adopted emperors continue.

Steve

PS Just checked and according to Wiki [I know but gives some info] the claim was put in in AD175, when Marcus was pretty ill and Commodus only 13 and may even have been encouraged by Marcus's wife. However once it was realised that Marcus was still alive, he continued the revolt as it now was. Despite this Marcus tried keeping it secret and hoped to show mercy but as the rebellion failed Cassius was killed by one of his own men. As such he was rather stupid, from the facts available here.
 
Last edited:
keedaman

Ah that was the man!;) What I meant was not that Cassius rebelled and was forgive. Either that Marcus actually died and the other generals [or most of them], accepted Cassius's claim or that no such rumour spreads, so the revolt is not started. [Could be wrong but from what I read Cassius was actually loyal, it was just that having heard, falsely, that Marcus was dead he put his hat into the ring]. Then possibly Marcus, because the state is under pressure, realises he needs a successor more reliable than his son. Possibly even that some scare highlights to him the need for a successor so that if he dies there is stability. [I believe this was after Lucius's death and Commodus was still too young.

Hmm... maybe a way to do this is for Marcus' entourage to get ambushed while marching through territory that the Romans were pacifying. IIRC the whole Marcomannic War turned into a kind of guerrilla conflict as the barbarians realised the Romans were too strong for them. So it is conceivable that Marcus while moving from one fort to another might get ambushed in the dank forests like Varus did. If you have Marcus surviving such a close shave there is a good chance he will spend quite a bit of time worrying of succession. Although choosing Avidius Cassius as successor seems less likely IMO. Wouldn't Marcus be more willing to choose from his cadre of loyal lieutenants instead of some far away Syrian general who has his own independent power base ?


PS Just checked and according to Wiki [I know but gives some info] the claim was put in in AD175, when Marcus was pretty ill and Commodus only 13 and may even have been encouraged by Marcus's wife. However once it was realised that Marcus was still alive, he continued the revolt as it now was. Despite this Marcus tried keeping it secret and hoped to show mercy but as the rebellion failed Cassius was killed by one of his own men. As such he was rather stupid, from the facts available here.
Well Cassius wasn't so much stupid as he was completely unprepared for the Senate declaring him an enemy of the state. Remember he had control of not only his home province of Syria but of Egypt and much of Asia Minor. From where he was sitting Cassius had a decent hold on not only a huge chunk of Marcus' tax revenue but also the vital grain supply so if he hadn't been assassinated, he could very well have defeated Marcus' forces.
 
Top