Roman Succession

[sbr]

I've been working on a theory that Commodus wasn't a bad Emperor, and gets a lot of his bad rap for his hatred of the Senate and elites and attempts to curtail their power and influence and place it firmly in the Imperial hands.  He tried to follow the precedent of Augustus, Titus, Domitian, Nero, and more in his self deification in sculpture and his imagery.  Being prior examples of people born to the purple or the founder of the Emperor position, they were naturals to look at for inspiration.

IIRC Commodus was the first (and only?) man truly "born into the purple (true natural son born while the father was Emperor)."  Titus was 30 and Domitian was 18 when Vespasian became Emperor,  and Nero was almost a non-entity until Claudius adopted him at the age of 13, 9 years after becoming Emperor.  I'm also not sure how you can compare him to Augustus.  Didn't Augustus make himself "First Citizen" and at least nominally got all of his titles and powers from an adoring Senate?

I think there may be something to the rest of your point, the histories were written by people that hated Commodus, and he may not be quite as bad as he is made out to be, but I still think he did a pretty good job of greasing the skids into the Crisis of the 3rd Century.

[Sophie Scholl]

I've been working on a theory that Commodus wasn't a bad Emperor, and gets a lot of his bad rap for his hatred of the Senate and elites and attempts to curtail their power and influence and place it firmly in the Imperial hands.  He tried to follow the precedent of Augustus, Titus, Domitian, Nero, and more in his self deification in sculpture and his imagery.  Being prior examples of people born to the purple or the founder of the Emperor position, they were naturals to look at for inspiration.

IIRC Commodus was the first (and only?) man truly "born into the purple (true natural son born while the father was Emperor)."  Titus was 30 and Domitian was 18 when Vespasian became Emperor,  and Nero was almost a non-entity until Claudius adopted him at the age of 13, 9 years after becoming Emperor.  I'm also not sure how you can compare him to Augustus.  Didn't Augustus make himself "First Citizen" and at least nominally got all of his titles and powers from an adoring Senate?

I think there may be something to the rest of your point, the histories were written by people that hated Commodus, and he may not be quite as bad as he is made out to be, but I still think he did a pretty good job of greasing the skids into the Crisis of the 3rd Century.

Augustus got some rep for being Julius' heir, but I more meant the similarities in terms of their coinage and state sponsored statuary.  Both went for Olympian level ideals and portrayed themselves as various Gods and heroes of legend, Augustus more so toward his later years when he was solidifying the idea and place of the princeps in society.  Who better to look toward than Augustus for ideas on how to be the ideal pater familias of the Roman people and how to enact policy.  I think if Commodus had gotten a chance to see those policies through, it would have been a different story.  Instead, with his assassination he left chaos and the void which helped cause the crisis you mention.

[Josquius]

I wonder how a secure dynastic emperor and a shogun would work out for rome. Could it lead to more of a Rome cant be permanently broken way of thinking?

Isn't that more or less what happened in the end in the west?

Howso?
With the pope you mean?

[Valmy]

I've been working on a theory that Commodus wasn't a bad Emperor, and gets a lot of his bad rap for his hatred of the Senate and elites and attempts to curtail their power and influence and place it firmly in the Imperial hands.

I think that works pretty well for Domitian, and even Nero was well educated and was at least competent he just wasn't that interested, but Commodus allowed himself to be controlled by palace cliques way too frequently which generally is a sign of being a poor ruler even if the stories of his megalomania have been overblown.

And um, in my opinion, the constant humiliations and screwing over of the Civilian elites was one of the worst and most destructive policies the Empire persisted in.  Of course the nature of the Empire probably made that ineviteable.

[alfred russel]

I disagree with the premise, but also that it was possible to prevent the civil wars through another inheritance mechanism. At any transition of political power, if the political power is given to someone without military power, there is a risk of civil war. In modern times and during the republic, this could be prevented by keeping the military loyal to the bureaucracy. But the Roman Empire became too large for this to work in a premodern state, and it is tough to see a system where distant generals didn't have some autonomous power that they could use in internal politics.

[jimmy olsen]

Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.

[Valmy]

Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.

Well the Ottoman's had a Civil War with every generation until they locked all the princes away in the Seraglio and the result was horrible leadership and stagnation.  Fortunately they were not being constantly attacked like the Romans.

The primary reason for the Roman's problems in the third century was not the military rebellions and coups anyway, the coups and rebellions were a result of the fact that they were losing and other guys thought they could do a better job.  Coups and rebellions are very common in any Empire that is being defeated and seems on the verge of collapse.

[Valmy]

Howso?
With the pope you mean?

I think he is talking about the shadow Emperors controlled by German Generals.

[alfred russel]

Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.

You are picking out an especially bad century in 500 years, and also I disagree on several fronts. First, before the colonial age, none were so large as Rome, and none of the colonial empires proved stable. Second, every european power underwent periods of severe turmoil at some point. Third, if you are starting with the premise that Rome didn't work, then I'm not sure that there was a large pre modern empire that ever did.

[jimmy olsen]

Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.

You are picking out an especially bad century in 500 years, and also I disagree on several fronts. First, before the colonial age, none were so large as Rome, and none of the colonial empires proved stable. Second, every european power underwent periods of severe turmoil at some point. Third, if you are starting with the premise that Rome didn't work, then I'm not sure that there was a large pre modern empire that ever did.

China seemed to work.

[Ideologue]

Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.

You are picking out an especially bad century in 500 years, and also I disagree on several fronts. First, before the colonial age, none were so large as Rome, and none of the colonial empires proved stable. Second, every european power underwent periods of severe turmoil at some point. Third, if you are starting with the premise that Rome didn't work, then I'm not sure that there was a large pre modern empire that ever did.

China seemed to work.

Maybe in your alternate histories.

[jimmy olsen]

Other large pre-modern empires seemed to work. I'm not saying they didn't have military rebellions and palace coups, but they weren't near as common as Rome's in the 3rd century.

You are picking out an especially bad century in 500 years, and also I disagree on several fronts. First, before the colonial age, none were so large as Rome, and none of the colonial empires proved stable. Second, every european power underwent periods of severe turmoil at some point. Third, if you are starting with the premise that Rome didn't work, then I'm not sure that there was a large pre modern empire that ever did.

China seemed to work.

Maybe in your alternate histories.

Fell apart a few times, but managed to be pulled back together. Rome, not so much.

Persia also still exists.

[Ideologue]

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, Tim, that's like saying Italy exists.

[Habbaku]

Tautologies are tautological.

[jimmy olsen]

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ, Tim, that's like saying Italy exists.

The Romans are rolling over in their graves at that insult.