WI:The Roman Empire was a full dynastic state?

A follow up on my earlier thread.The POD would be the Julio-Claudian Emperors not purging most of their male relatives,so there's ample of choice to choose an emperor from when the incumbent one is completely nuts like Caligula.If the Roman Empire was a full dynastic state under the descendants of Augustus,would it somehow be much stabler compared to the one from OTL?Or would things be the same,just that armies will be marching on Rome under the name of different descendants of Augustus?
 
Possibly, first it would have to have several generations of stable succession, then some sort of house law being established in the 3rd to 5th generation. It would of been ideal if one of Augustus' grandson's would of inherited then one of their sons.
 
Well, this seems rather sound.

However, I would point to the fact that, given ancient Rome's aristocratic culture and way of thinking politics, things almost always turned badly ... When direct descendants of emperors became themselves emperors.

Caligula was a great-grandson of Augustus. Nerones was a great-great grandson of Augustus. Commodus was the son of Marcus Aurelius. Caracalla was the son of Septimus Severus.
 
I think there's danger for the potential dynasty here; they risk undermining their legitimacy if they dispense with the formality of election by the Senate, since Rome had long constructed its political identity in opposition to traditional kingship.
 
Problem is that Rome was traditionally very republican. Even if emperors directly don't say that their office is hereditary, senators wouldn't accept from father to son transition. It would look like too monarchist. And you should change much character of emperors that they don't purge their relatives.
 
The biggest general problem with hereditary monarchy is always the monarch. You´ll always have bad monarchs, and that´ll wreak the havoc upon the empire as it did IOTL.

But that doesn`t mean that a stable dynasty wouldn`t have changed Rome`s history a lot. The Five Good Emperors wouldn´t come into power, so a lot depends on who would take their place. If the empire makes it undamaged into the third century nonetheless, then the Crisis will look differently without the permanent usurpations. With emperorship being enshrined as solidly hereditary, endangered provinces and their legions would not declare their generals emperors. But successful ambitious provincial military leaders might nevertheless attempt to do something - what they might attempt to do, though, is beyond my imagination.
 
If the Roman Empire was a full dynastic state under the descendants of Augustus,would it somehow be much stabler compared to the one from OTL?Or would things be the same,just that armies will be marching on Rome under the name of different descendants of Augustus?
I am afraid, things might be worse.
You see "different descendants of Augustus" might be mediocrities at best; the pool of descendants is too small - 3-4 persons, a dozen, I don't know.
What are the chances that there is a true capable man among them?
A bunch of second-raters squabbling is a sorry sight.

But in OTL the pool of possible emperors was much wider - a thousand, several thousands, maybe more. And all of them are usually people with experience in war and administration.
It is kind of Darwinian - usually the strongest, the fittest won. A truly capable talented charismatic emperor can do more in a few years than a bunch of mediocrities can do in a few decades.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I am afraid, things might be worse.
You see "different descendants of Augustus" might be mediocrities at best; the pool of descendants is too small - 3-4 persons, a dozen, I don't know.
What are the chances that there is a true capable man among them?
A bunch of second-raters squabbling is a sorry sight.

But in OTL the pool of possible emperors was much wider - a thousand, several thousands, maybe more. And all of them are usually people with experience in war and administration.

A smaller pool of potential Augustus is an advantage, because that limits the pool of people who can succeed and thus making succession much more predictable and stable, this is one of the reasons why imperial China or Medieval England didn't have a succession war following the death of every monarch.

In theory a bigger pool produces better emperors, but in reality the civil war which followed the death of nearly every emperor in the late empire usually undid whatever good they did int heir life time.

It is kind of Darwinian - usually the strongest, the fittest won. A truly capable talented charismatic emperor can do more in a few years than a bunch of mediocrities can do in a few decades.
Except by the late empire the emperors were usually bad anyway, just because someone is good at power struggle for the throne doesn't mean they are actually good at governing the empire, or even commanding the army.
 
Problem is that Rome was traditionally very republican. Even if emperors directly don't say that their office is hereditary, senators wouldn't accept from father to son transition. It would look like too monarchist. And you should change much character of emperors that they don't purge their relatives.

What would happen if the emperors tried to purge the senate?It isn't the first time an emperor got away with doing that?
 
I am sure, that a more dynastic succession is very possible. The senate would do nothing. And the legions and the people prefered a dynastic succession anyway as a clear prolongation of the existing patron-client relationship.

If Lucius or Gaius Caesar survive, one of them becomes emperor instead of Tiberius. If Drusus the Younger does not die, he follows Tiberius instead of Caligula. And the senate never opposed against Titus and Domitian following Vespasianus or Commodus after Aurelius.

But that does not change the fact, that in the roman world of the principate, every aristocrat could challenge the emperor. At least if it was a bad emperor it was even the duty of a real honorable aristocrat to challenge him. I don't see, how the romans can change their mind, if just a few emperors in a row have sons.

Actually the succession model of the principate was not that bad until Severus Alexander. The two civil wars did not harm the empire that much, compared to the ongoing trouble in the late empire. Not mentioning the 50 years of chaos after Severus Alexander. Well, we do not know, what would have happened, if the empire comes under heavy external pressure in the first centuries.
 
Last edited:
I am sure, that a more dynastic succession is very possible. The senate would do nothing. And the legions and the people prefered a dynastic succession anyway as a clear prolongation of the existing patron-client relationship.

If Lucius or Gaius Caesar survive, one of them becomes emperor instead of Tiberius. If Drusus the Younger does not die, he follows Tiberius instead of Caligula. And the senate never opposed against Titus and Domitian following Vespasianus or Commodus after Aurelius.

But that does not change the fact, that in the roman world of the principate, every aristocrat could challenge the emperor. At least if it was a bad emperor it was even the duty of a real honorable aristocrat to challenge him. I don't see, how the romans can change their mind, if just a few emperors in a row have sons.

Actually the succession model of the principate was not that bad until Severus Alexander. The two civil wars did not harm the empire that much, compared to the ongoing trouble in the late empire. Not mentioning the 50 years of chaos after Severus Alexander. Well, we do not know, what would have happened, if the empire comes under heavy external pressure in the first centuries.

Could the aristocracy have been much neutered like otl with those being of patrician rank banned from joining the army,with the ranks of the officer corps wholly filled by those of equestrian rank or complete pleibians?
 
I think there's danger for the potential dynasty here; they risk undermining their legitimacy if they dispense with the formality of election by the Senate, since Rome had long constructed its political identity in opposition to traditional kingship.

Roman traditional kingship was not automatically hereditary however. But yes, the feeling was that birtright alone an Emperor did not make.
 
Could the aristocracy have been much neutered like otl with those being of patrician rank banned from joining the army,with the ranks of the officer corps wholly filled by those of equestrian rank or complete pleibians?

Actually patrician or plebejan does not matter. Some of the most powerful senatorial families were plebejan. The patrician family of the Julii was actually one of the poorer families in Caesars times.

And the real mess started, when equestrians (also ex caliga) became able to command legions (prefectus legionis) and entire armies. The senatorial class with about 1000 men was much easier to supervise for an emperor, than the about 20.000 equestrians. Not talking about the 200.000 local nobles which also tried to make a career to the top in the 3rd century.

Augustus used equestrians for the critical jobs in Rome. Praetorians and tribunes of the roman forces and most prefects in the central administration have been equestrians. Augustus knew, that they had no chance to usurp against him, because an equestrian would never be accepted as emperor. And therefore would not try to challenge him. But when the equestrian became the upper class during the 3rd century, we saw the first equestrian usurper challenging Caracalla.
 
A smaller pool of potential Augustus is an advantage, because that limits the pool of people who can succeed and thus making succession much more predictable and stable, this is one of the reasons why imperial China or Medieval England didn't have a succession war following the death of every monarch.
Not every monarch, no, but quite a few, at least for England (China is more complicated, but went through quite a few dynastic changes/collapses/civil wars during the period, including centuries of disunion).

Considering England post-William the Conqueror and ending with the Tudors, I see William II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Henry III, Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII all having to face military opposition to their ascension from rival claimants. In addition, there were plenty of other rebellions/civil wars/usurpations (note that I didn't include Edward II or Richard II).

I'm honestly not sure that the record for dynastic succession is better in that respect than the Roman approach (which, frankly, was generally "dynastic until someone overthrew your dynasty"; plenty of emperors inherited the throne peacefully).
 
Not every monarch, no, but quite a few, at least for England (China is more complicated, but went through quite a few dynastic changes/collapses/civil wars during the period, including centuries of disunion).

Considering England post-William the Conqueror and ending with the Tudors, I see William II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Henry III, Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII all having to face military opposition to their ascension from rival claimants. In addition, there were plenty of other rebellions/civil wars/usurpations (note that I didn't include Edward II or Richard II).

I'm honestly not sure that the record for dynastic succession is better in that respect than the Roman approach (which, frankly, was generally "dynastic until someone overthrew your dynasty"; plenty of emperors inherited the throne peacefully).
Arguably,Chinese dynasties collapse because the emperor weakens the authority of imperial family members either too much or gave them too much power--with them failing to find a balance in between.At the start of the Han Dynasty,Empress Lu Zhi and her family dominated the control of the empire.They were never able to pull anything similar to Wu Zetian though where the in-laws essentially usurped the throne because vast territories were governed by members of the Imperial Family as hereditary kings.The opposite example was what the Simas of the Jin Dynasty did by almost giving imperial family members complete free reign over their fiefs,which combined with the fact that the emperor was mentally handicapped caused the War of the Eight Princes.It really depends on whether a balance could be struck with giving imperial family members enough power to cement the authority of the dynasty out in the provinces but not enough to defy or overthrow the emperor.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Not every monarch, no, but quite a few, at least for England (China is more complicated, but went through quite a few dynastic changes/collapses/civil wars during the period, including centuries of disunion).
Chinese dynastic collapse don't occur because of disputed succession though.

Considering England post-William the Conqueror and ending with the Tudors, I see William II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Henry III, Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII all having to face military opposition to their ascension from rival claimants. In addition, there were plenty of other rebellions/civil wars/usurpations (note that I didn't include Edward II or Richard II).

I'm honestly not sure that the record for dynastic succession is better in that respect than the Roman approach (which, frankly, was generally "dynastic until someone overthrew your dynasty"; plenty of emperors inherited the throne peacefully).

Yes there were civil wars in primogeniture systems, and yes, some emperors inherit peacefully. But the point is that the rate of succession wars in England was much lower than the rate of succession wars in imperial Rome.

It's telling that between 1000-1500 there were only two major succession wars in England: the Anarchy and the War of the Roses, that's one war every 250 years. In Rome during the crisis of the third century you had a violent changeover of emperor once every few years, even past that point nearly every succession involved some kind of military conflict.

Basically you'd rather take a system with a 10% failure rate than one with like a 75% fail rate.
 
Top