In OTL the roman empire hardly could be called a monarchy, as their rulers usually fell to coups or to assassinations that resulted on a general or politician rising to power with their own clique to become the next emperor, and this was also true to the pre Makedon dynasty byzantine empire, and so I come here with this discussion: How could the roman empire could have one house ruling it with a PoD after the crisis of the third century? And what changes this would bring?
WI: The Roman empire had one long lasting dynasty?
- Thread starter Gukpard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ave caesar monarchy pod roman
What do you mean by "long"? The Valentinian-Theodosian Dynasty ruled for almost 100 years.
There are a few opportunities for that to happen after the reign of Julian.
-Maybe the Romans defeat the Goths at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD, prolonging the Valentinian dynasty?
-Maybe Theodosius lives long enough to prepare his sons for the emperorship, and the Theodosian dynasty goes beyond the mid-5th century?
-Maybe Constantius III lives beyond 421 and is able to found a new dynasty?
-Maybe the Romans defeat the Goths at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD, prolonging the Valentinian dynasty?
-Maybe Theodosius lives long enough to prepare his sons for the emperorship, and the Theodosian dynasty goes beyond the mid-5th century?
-Maybe Constantius III lives beyond 421 and is able to found a new dynasty?
My favorite emperor is Valens, let's say that he wins decisively at Adrianople, what happens next?
Also, can a long lasting dynasty result on a "normalization" of the roman monarchy, I mean, each new dynasty would last more than it's predecessor instead of dozens of coups and assassinations?
Lucius Junius Brutus is spinning in his grave
No but seriously it would be viewed as a “restoration of the tyranny of the Kingdom” and probably be an unpopular move
At first, yes, but what about after 100 years of just one dynasty ruling, they could get used to it as it would be a "True roman monarchy" instead of a "foreign estrucan king".
Nobody cares after the Crisis of the Third Century.Diocletian and friends were openly wearing crowns and called themselves living gods.
Wouldn't that rule out pretty much every European dynasty,except for may be the British and the Swedes?
The Ruriks lasted more than that, the Palailogos on byzantium too, didn't they?
Ok ok, I think I went to far, let me make a point:
Those emperors don't need to rule for long, the idea is to have the throne to be kept on their family from grandfather to father to son to grandson until you reach the eight sucessor. The idea is that this would continue to a point that the romans would see the hereditary sucession as something usual.
Let reduce the number of generations to six, what do you think?
There are three problems here.
The first is that Rome/ Byzantium legally was a republic at least up to the fourth crusade. Often one family appeared to dominate it, people seem to be naturally dynastic for some reason, but you really need a powerful Emperor to overcome this and found a formal dynasty.
The second is that in actual monarchies, three centuries is a good run for a dynasty. None of the Chinese dynasties lasted much beyond that, and until 1912 there was no hint of republicanism in China.
The third, and this may be coincidence, is that Roman and Byzantine Emperors just tended to have not that many children, or even none at all, and this included the most dominant ones. Elite families in those empires just were not into siring large numbers of children. Octavian, who had one daughter, even tried to correct this with legislation. This makes it really hard to found enduring dynasties.
The first is that Rome/ Byzantium legally was a republic at least up to the fourth crusade. Often one family appeared to dominate it, people seem to be naturally dynastic for some reason, but you really need a powerful Emperor to overcome this and found a formal dynasty.
The second is that in actual monarchies, three centuries is a good run for a dynasty. None of the Chinese dynasties lasted much beyond that, and until 1912 there was no hint of republicanism in China.
The third, and this may be coincidence, is that Roman and Byzantine Emperors just tended to have not that many children, or even none at all, and this included the most dominant ones. Elite families in those empires just were not into siring large numbers of children. Octavian, who had one daughter, even tried to correct this with legislation. This makes it really hard to found enduring dynasties.
The French had the same dynasty from Hugh Capet to Louis Philippe, minuse that trouble with a bunch of rabble and a Corsican.
Do you think Nero had a chance? In AD 69, most of the roman troops were concentrate in no more than 1,000 (basically a legion would be assigned a region and the commander split them into several forts, with a main legion camp). There were several large concentrations. One was in Britain. Another was on the Rhine. A third was in Hispania and Southern Gaul. Of course, there is the praetorian Guard in Rome. The last one is Vespasian, dealing with the Jewish revolt. The first three are commander by men who hate Nero and whose men are of dubious loyalty. IIRC, the Praetorian Guard was also traitor. That leaves Vespasian, but he made a bid for the throne too, so his loyalty is suspect. Also Nero usually executes people who fall asleep at his corut while he is singing and playing and Vespasian did that and "merely" got demoted, so the two don't eeactly like each other.
not Roman anymore.
not Roman anymore.