WI: Roman Empire Had Two Co-Emperor's From Start?

[hasdrubal barca]

What if Roman Empire Had Two Co-Emperor's From Start?

Was reading about the co emperor's Marcus Aurelius-Lucius Verus and got the idea of having Rome with two Emperor's from the beginning. Augustus could have in theory left the empire to Agrippa's children Gaius and Lucius, had they lived, or to both Tiberius and Drusus the Elder, had he lived. What would be the implications? Would this be more effective or less effective? Note this scenario implies, I know its a stretch, that the various emperors are do not to kill each other for power.

Some interesting pairings I was thinking of:
Gaius and Lucius
Tiberius and Drusus the Elder
Germanicus and Drusus the Younger
Caligula and Gemellus
Nero and Britannicus

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Any ideas.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Every time the empire was divided, either a civil war or an external disaster occurred. Having Augustus start the trend would just make it more likely, and the empire wouldn't even reach what it did in OTL.

- BNC

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I think the idea could certainly have merit - the issue is that Augustus had just crushed any concept of sharing power.

I can see it plausible that he begins to set up a co-Emperor in his mid-to-later years, similar to the co-consuls (perhaps using that tradition to base it on), to ensure a smooth transfer of power and continuation of his plans.

That sort of overlapping co-Emperorship could significantly reduce the number of succession issues the Empire had historically. The decision just needs to be made how to appoint successors? Each co-Emperor determines their successor? A Joint decision arbitrated by the Senate? The Co-emperors each choose the others successor? All could work.

I think the important aspect to master is jurisdiction. If one Emperor is given the West and the other the East, then that creates two very seperate entities in the long run. A better solution (rather than recreate the Triumverate in Two), would be two equals, typically expected to reside in the same location and work in tandem - with the exception being when there are wars - where one or both of them need to be located at different fronts.

 

[darthfanta]

I think the idea could certainly have merit - the issue is that Augustus had just crushed any concept of sharing power.

I can see it plausible that he begins to set up a co-Emperor in his mid-to-later years, similar to the co-consuls (perhaps using that tradition to base it on), to ensure a smooth transfer of power and continuation of his plans.

That sort of overlapping co-Emperorship could significantly reduce the number of succession issues the Empire had historically. The decision just needs to be made how to appoint successors? Each co-Emperor determines their successor? A Joint decision arbitrated by the Senate? The Co-emperors each choose the others successor? All could work.

I think the important aspect to master is jurisdiction. If one Emperor is given the West and the other the East, then that creates two very seperate entities in the long run. A better solution (rather than recreate the Triumverate in Two), would be two equals, typically expected to reside in the same location and work in tandem - with the exception being when there are wars - where one or both of them need to be located at different fronts.

So basically two permanent consuls?

 

[James XI]

The consular precedent is probably less helpful because their power was so limited; dictators were almost exclusively solo, and the whole Romulas/Remus dynamic hovered largely over Rome. Anytime it came down to 2, a la Marius and Sulla, it seemed to naturally lead to conflict. This was why Triumverates were the experiment, and why both quickly became antagonistic when one of the legs was kicked out, leaving it down to 2.

It can work when the personalities are complimentary, and requires pretty solid trust and at least one of the 2 has to be pretty lacking in personal ambition, which is a rarity amongst power players. If/when you get that combination, it can be very effective.

 

[Tonifranz]

What if Roman Empire Had Two Co-Emperor's From Start?

Was reading about the co emperor's Marcus Aurelius-Lucius Verus and got the idea of having Rome with two Emperor's from the beginning. Augustus could have in theory left the empire to Agrippa's children Gaius and Lucius, had they lived, or to both Tiberius and Drusus the Elder, had he lived. What would be the implications? Would this be more effective or less effective? Note this scenario implies, I know its a stretch, that the various emperors are do not to kill each other for power.

Some interesting pairings I was thinking of:
Gaius and Lucius
Tiberius and Drusus the Elder
Germanicus and Drusus the Younger
Caligula and Gemellus
Nero and Britannicus

Technically, Agrippa was constitutionally speaking, a co-emperor, as he was granted the tribunician power, the Constitutional basis being emperor, in 18 BC until he died. Tiberius was also formally the princeps from AD 4 when he was granted the tribunicial power upon the death of Augustus' grandsons.

 

[Agricola]

Technically, Agrippa was constitutionally speaking, a co-emperor, as he was granted the tribunician power, the Constitutional basis being emperor, in 18 BC until he died. Tiberius was also formally the princeps from AD 4 when he was granted the tribunicial power upon the death of Augustus' grandsons.

Exactly, Augustus had an co-emperor. This way succession was prepared. Other emperors did not like the idea of an co-emperor.
Who should force a roman emperor to agree upon a co-emperor or the idea at all?
Just a group who was more powerful that the emperor! Unfortunately nobody was more powerful than the emperor. Even if e.g. Caligula accepts a constitutional law which forces a co-emperor. He or his successor can cancel this law, whenever they want to.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Exactly, Augustus had an co-emperor. This way succession was prepared. Other emperors did not like the idea of an co-emperor.
Who should force a roman emperor to agree upon a co-emperor or the idea at all?
Just a group who was more powerful that the emperor! Unfortunately nobody was more powerful than the emperor. Even if e.g. Caligula accepts a constitutional law which forces a co-emperor. He or his successor can cancel this law, whenever they want to.

I think it would have to be a cultural change even more then a constitutional one. Like it just becomes common practice to have two men that Caligula doesn't even think not too.

 

[The Professor]

Rather than full (junior) Emperors could Augustus have set things up so they have different roles even if there is some overlap?

 

[Agricola]

Rather than full (junior) Emperors could Augustus have set things up so they have different roles even if there is some overlap?

The only workshare I can imagine is, that one is in Rome, while the other is campaigning or takes care about other important issues in the provinces. So did Tiberius and Germanicus or Aurelius and Verus. But this is fully situational and decided on the fly by the senior emperor.

I doubt that 2 equal emperors can work in an absolutistic monarchy like the roman one. "There can be only one" is a critical success factor of the roman principate.

 

[Agricola]

I think it would have to be a cultural change even more then a constitutional one. Like it just becomes common practice to have two men that Caligula doesn't even think not too.

Well, initially Tiberius had a co-emperor or at least a designated heir with Germanicus and later Drusus. But after they died, he did not assign a dedicated heir (e.g Caligula). If he would have done it, this could have been the beginning of a new tradition, because Augustus did it, too. And Caligula would have done it perhaps, too.

The praetorians were usually very interested in a smooth succession. They brought Caligula and Claudius to the throne as fast as possible, in order to avoid any trouble. They even arrested Nerva until he was willing to appoint Trajan. On the other hand by killing Galba and Pertinax the praetorians caused the two big civil wars of the principate.

 

[Gaargod]

I think we can get Augustus to do it. Actually, I think we can get him to have a whole stack of 'Junior Emperors' (not that they'd be called that...)!

PoD - Agrippa survives his illness in 12BC, likely caused by his exertions in Pannonia the year before. At age 51 and a healthy soldier otherwise, it seems reasonable that he might live for a while longer.

Most immediate change - Tiberius then doesn't marry Augustus' daughter Julia (and therefore isn't forced to divorce his wife - likely making him a lot happier in the long run!), becoming, along with his brother Drusus, heirs presumptive (at least for now). Instead, Agrippa continues being practically co-emperor (in 18BC, he was given Tribunician power, and had imperium covering a very large chunk of the Empire) - Eck suggested in The Age of Augustus that this was also partially to please the Caesarian supporters

However, Augustus doesn't like the fact that Agrippa nearly died from an illness. He looks around at his potential 'heirs':

• Agrippa (obviously): Augustus' friend, Respected and talented general, but now 51 years old.
• Gaius Vispanius: Agrippa's eldest son by Julia, 8 years old. Augustus' grandson. Adopted by Augstus in 17BC.
• Lucius Vispanius: Agrippa's second eldest son by Julia, 5 years old. Augustus' grandson. Adopted by Augutus in 17BC.
• Drusus: Augustus' younger stepson by Livia, 26 years old.
• Tiberius: Augstus' elder stepson by Livia, 30 years old.
• Germanicus: Drusus Claudius' son by Antonia, 3 years old. Augustus' grandson-in-law.
• Agrippa's children by Attica?

Now, at this stage, Augustus had been pretty adamant about being the princeps, whilst even Agrippa is merely his assistant. So whilst it's tempting to say that we can just have Augustus change his mind... I doubt it.
Let's instead formalise the process Augustus had begun. He officially designates Agrippa his socius, 'ally' (borrowing a word from Tacitus Annals 4 here). However, he wants a backup too, in case Agrippa dies off - and conveniently for our purposes, Tiberius and Drusus are about to cover themselves in glory with their Germanic campaigns. Augustus names both of them as adiutores, 'assistants' (again, Tacitus). That's 3 top-level military commanders too - and at least Drusus & Tiberius need further commands to boost their reputation, so the German campaigns are likely to continue.
But remember, in the long term, he really wants his grandsons Gaius and Lucius to be Agrippa's heirs. So, I reckon he goes for rewriting his will to name them both adiutores if he dies (maybe).

Whether of not this actually goes anywhere is a different matter. If Drusus still dies in 9BC, that's not too much of a problem, but it's all dependent on Agrippa - if he's still around, I think his sons are likely to live longer too (particularly because Livia may not dare go for her OTL shenanigans, if that is what killed off Gaius and Lucius).


In any case, there's now more of a tradition of having multiple back-ups and multiple generations of obvious heirs being given power. There's also an insane danger of Augustus' stepson(s) vs. his grandsons in a terrible civil war, but hey, that's Rome for you!

 

[Agricola]

In any case, there's now more of a tradition of having multiple back-ups and multiple generations of obvious heirs being given power. There's also an insane danger of Augustus' stepson(s) vs. his grandsons in a terrible civil war, but hey, that's Rome for you!

I am not sure, if Augustus should have intensified his preparations for succession. After his severe illness (21 BC?) he tried to make always very clear, who is his heir. First it was Agrippa and therfore in the 2nd row the sons of Agrippa and grandons of Augustus. After they all died, he appointed Tiberius and let him adopt Germanicus. Again a very clear succession for 2 generations.

Other than your proposal, there is not much room for conflicts or a civil war. Even if I agree, that a true roman always find a reason to kill his brother, like Romulus did. This is perhaps the oldest roman tradition and a strong part of the roman mindset.

As mentioned above, the problem was, that Tiberius stopped following Augustus' example. I doubt more formalization would had helped. Augustus' system looked already formal enough. And the 2nd big problem is, that in an absolutistic monarchy the monarch can abandon almost everything, even the most formal processes. The only thing a roman princeps could not do that easily without risking his life was a strong violation of roman traditions. So you are right, we have to strengthen this very young tradition of succession. But I am convinced we have to look at Tiberius not Augustus. Augustus was clear enough.

Just some scenarios: if Germanicus does not die, or if Drusus does not fall into disgrace, the tradition would work one generation longer and becomes stronger.

 

[Gaargod]

...
As mentioned above, the problem was, that Tiberius stopped following Augustus' example. I doubt more formalization would had helped. Augustus' system looked already formal enough. And the 2nd big problem is, that in an absolutistic monarchy the monarch can abandon almost everything, even the most formal processes. The only thing a roman princeps could not do that easily without risking his life was a strong violation of roman traditions. So you are right, we have to strengthen this very young tradition of succession. But I am convinced we have to look at Tiberius not Augustus. Augustus was clear enough.

Very fair, I was just trying to go off the OP's request for Augustus specifically. I'm also trying to have multiple 'co-emperors' under a senior emperor, as this seems less dangerous than true co-emperors.

More importantly, I'm actually trying to either a) change Tiberius' mindset, or b) get him out of the proper line of succession. If he isn't forced to divorce his wife and marry the vastly shameful Julia, he might well be a much happier sod (it also wouldn't hurt if his mother wasn't able to keep reminding him that she got him to be emperor by making Augustus choose him over Germanicus). Or simply make Gaius/Lucius the emperors.

Just some scenarios: if Germanicus does not die, or if Drusus does not fall into disgrace, the tradition would work one generation longer and becomes stronger.

I personally ascribe to the theory that Tiberius had Germanicus killed off. So for Germanicus to inherit, Tiberius needs to die (illness or coup, whatever works) - which in and of itself in validates the 2 generations rule.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

If the Romans acquire gunpowder in an earlier period, then it would be possible for the Arabs to also have some form of gunpowder.

I won't lie, this certainly comes across as the best non-sequitur ever

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Well let me ask you, is it not true that the Romans and Greeks wrote down information in regards to their technology, unless it was particularly a secret?

If the answer is yes, then you would know, that the translation of Greek and Roman works to Arabic would likely lead to the transfer of the information of gunpowder to the Arabs as did numerous other Greek, Roman and Persian information.

Your point is true - but I must have missed the bit where co-emperors leads to better technological documentation and thus proliferation. Hence, non-sequitur.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

My apologies, I posted the message to the wrong thread. It seems my English reading needs some fine tuning....

 

[Karolus Rex]

What if Roman Empire Had Two Co-Emperor's From Start?

Was reading about the co emperor's Marcus Aurelius-Lucius Verus and got the idea of having Rome with two Emperor's from the beginning. Augustus could have in theory left the empire to Agrippa's children Gaius and Lucius, had they lived, or to both Tiberius and Drusus the Elder, had he lived. What would be the implications? Would this be more effective or less effective? Note this scenario implies, I know its a stretch, that the various emperors are do not to kill each other for power.

Some interesting pairings I was thinking of:
Gaius and Lucius
Tiberius and Drusus the Elder
Germanicus and Drusus the Younger
Caligula and Gemellus
Nero and Britannicus

Gaius and Lucius - Could work. They had been prepared for the job since they were born, had a good relation and both had promising futures. The problem is more focus on how would the succession work. Would their eldest sons share power? If yes what guaranties there are that they would't end up fighting for power?

Tiberius and Drusus the Elder - Could work, they were brothers and had a very good relation, but why would Augustus support them? Augustus wasn't overly found of Tiberius, he only got to be Emperor because all the other candidates had died or weren't deemed good enough and even then Augustus forced him to adopt Germanicus to ensure that Germanicus would be the Emperor after Tiberius, and Drusus apparently wasn't overly found of the system Augustus created in Rome.

Germanicus and Drusus the Younger - This depends on who was the previous Emperor(s). If it were Tiberius and Drusus the Elder it could work with each inheriting the power of his father but what would happen next? Drusus was known for being violent and his temperament and personality are the opposite of Germanicus and they would most likely end in fighting each other, probably because Drusus would fear the popularity of Germanicus with the people. If it was Augustus then I doubt Drusus the Younger would get the position of heir as Augustus forced Tiberius to adopt Germanicus so that Drusus would be bellow Germanicus.

Caligula and Gemellus - Tiberius appointed them as Co-Heirs but in the end Caligula ended killing Gemellus the moment Tiberius died. Sorry but can't see this work.

Nero and Britannicus - The scenario that would most likely end in civil war of the above. They, supposedly, hated each other and both had factions built around them. If in the end Claudius really begun to favor Britannicus as heir then Nero would never get power. With his son having reached manhood then Claudius wouldn't need Nero anymore, for now Nero was no longer the replacement in case something happened to Britannicus he was now a rival. Given the place where Britannicus was raised, and believing Suetonius claim that Britannicus had matured quickly, then Britannicus would be most likely a very cynical and pragmatic person. With such different persons in power this would end with one of them murdered or in civil war.

Co-Rule usually one works when there is a senior and a junior part. The Emperor appointing his eldest son as heir is a good example of working co-rule. An Emperor appointing his two heirs as co-emperors could work if they had a relation like the one Tiberius and Drusus had but the problem then is the succession. What guaranties there are that their heirs won't hate each other or that one of them is ambitious? It would most likely end with the Empire in civil war. The only real time power sharing worked was during Diocletianus and the system died when he died as the co-emperors begun to fight for supreme power.