Succession to the throne

[Roman Emperor]

If a much more concrete method of succession to the imperial throne had been developed, would that have done anything to strengthen the Empire and perhaps stave off its fall for a few more centuries? Since I believe the throne was basically de facto hereditary, I don't understand why a series of laws were not passed to clarify it. I mean, in the UK and most other European monarchies, there is a long list of candidates that spells out who gets the throne next if so and so dies, which basically prevents any dispute since it is always known who gets it. But many times when an emperor died, there wasn't that procedure to follow. It was basically the last general standing gets it.

 

Now I understand that the first few emperors couldn't do this since he still needed to maintain the pretense that the Republic was alive and well and there was no monarchy.But when that facade did eventually disappear, why was a system of succession not established?

[Segestan]

If a much more concrete method of succession to the imperial throne had been developed, would that have done anything to strengthen the Empire and perhaps stave off its fall for a few more centuries? Since I believe the throne was basically de facto hereditary, I don't understand why a series of laws were not passed to clarify it. I mean, in the UK and most other European monarchies, there is a long list of candidates that spells out who gets the throne next if so and so dies, which basically prevents any dispute since it is always known who gets it. But many times when an emperor died, there wasn't that procedure to follow. It was basically the last general standing gets it.

 

Now I understand that the first few emperors couldn't do this since he still needed to maintain the pretense that the Republic was alive and well and there was no monarchy.But when that facade did eventually disappear, why was a system of succession not established?

 

 

The biggest problem with the Imperial Throne was it

[Ingsoc]

I don't think such a law would prevent a power struggle, even ancient monarchies like the Ptolemaic and Seleucid had power struggles for the throne.

 

Also many of those struggles were due to the fact that there wasn't any male descendance availiable from the imperial family to assume the throne (like after the death of Nero).

[caldrail]

All things considered I'm not sure that a formal succession would have made much difference to the fate of the roman empire. The essential problem is roman competitiveness. There were always men waiting behind the scenes waiting their chance to go for it and replace the current emperor whether he be good or bad. If a particular roman found that he could summon enough support to make it worth the risk, then he would have staged his coup regardless of laws to the contrary. Sejanus for instance worked tirelessly to take the reigns from Tiberius and basically rode roughshod over the law to ensure his power base increased. Granted, he came to a sticky end, but it didn't necessarily have to end that way. People willing to mount coups are rarely the sort who concern themselves with the rights and wrongs of it. Since they believe they have every right, they go ahead.

 

The possibility of male descendants wasn't an obstacle to power struggles, since if these unfortunate persons happened to be be on the losing side, their survival is not guaranteed at all. As an example, this principle is what underlies Robert Graves I, Claudius as the heirs of Augustus are bumped off one by one to ensure Tiberius rules.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Having *some* legal mechanism of succession certainly would have helped clarify things for the law-abiding citizens of Rome. The risk, however, of a hereditary mechanism of succession is that you risk getting some retarded or insane fool on the throne, which completely undermines the authority of the position.

[Klingan]

If a much more concrete method of succession to the imperial throne had been developed, would that have done anything to strengthen the Empire and perhaps stave off its fall for a few more centuries? Since I believe the throne was basically de facto hereditary, I don't understand why a series of laws were not passed to clarify it. I mean, in the UK and most other European monarchies, there is a long list of candidates that spells out who gets the throne next if so and so dies, which basically prevents any dispute since it is always known who gets it. But many times when an emperor died, there wasn't that procedure to follow. It was basically the last general standing gets it.

 

Now I understand that the first few emperors couldn't do this since he still needed to maintain the pretense that the Republic was alive and well and there was no monarchy.But when that facade did eventually disappear, why was a system of succession not established?

 

The clear (even if most were traditions not laws) rules of the republic didn't save it, why would a law of succession order save the empire?

[caldrail]

Having *some* legal mechanism of succession certainly would have helped clarify things for the law-abiding citizens of Rome. The risk, however, of a hereditary mechanism of succession is that you risk getting some retarded or insane fool on the throne, which completely undermines the authority of the position.

 

But the people willing to assassinate or mount coups are not inherently law abiding people, nor do law abiding people generally stop them since this people continually rise to power in spite of legal restrictions. Laws are all very well, but it also requires a population who are willing to stand by them. If the risk is too great, they don't, they duck and mind their own business whilst the new tyrant takes over.

[Primus Pilus]

The biggest problem with the Imperial Throne was it

[M. Porcius Cato]

Having *some* legal mechanism of succession certainly would have helped clarify things for the law-abiding citizens of Rome. The risk, however, of a hereditary mechanism of succession is that you risk getting some retarded or insane fool on the throne, which completely undermines the authority of the position.

But the people willing to assassinate or mount coups are not inherently law abiding people

 

That's true, and it's why small crimes (like Clodius' Bona Dea crime or Caesar's crossing into Germania) must be prosecuted mercilessly--a ruthless application of the law will catch petty scoundrels before they go on to greater crimes.

[Ursus]

I don't believe a formal monarchy could have been established as long as it was required to co-opt the Senatorial order as a pool of advisors and administrators. The strongest opposition to monarchy would of course come from the former republic's ruling class. Thus a monarchy could not have been proclaimed until after the Crisis of the Third Century when the Senatorial order became increasingly anachronistic.

[caldrail]

Having *some* legal mechanism of succession certainly would have helped clarify things for the law-abiding citizens of Rome. The risk, however, of a hereditary mechanism of succession is that you risk getting some retarded or insane fool on the throne, which completely undermines the authority of the position.

But the people willing to assassinate or mount coups are not inherently law abiding people

 

That's true, and it's why small crimes (like Clodius' Bona Dea crime or Caesar's crossing into Germania) must be prosecuted mercilessly--a ruthless application of the law will catch petty scoundrels before they go on to greater crimes.

 

No arguement there, but notice how limp the prosecution was. Caesar was no stranger to risktaking in politics - he had been part of a four man plot to take the senate by nothing more than mass murder. The problem with such ruthless personalities is that they tirelessly exploit every single gap they come across, whereas your average law abiding group think everythings sorted and move on to other business. Now it has to be aid Caesar knew there was a threat of his career coming to an abrupt end, which I why he led an army across the Rubicon to back his survival. But that in tself shows that Caesar was not going to back down simply because some law-abiding people thought it would be better. Most of them of course were unable to rival caesars popularity with the masses, won both by hs personal charisma and also by his un-patrician willinness to meet them on their home ground and shake their hand. He used popularity methods instead of relying on good old fashioned social superiority. Caesar was in effect using methods we associate with modern politicians rather than depending on the old school tie. For the senate, Caesar represented a loose cannon on the deck, and given that republican politics had become somewhat moribund and self-serving, his popularity was bound to put him high in the polls. The general apathy of the roman population toward politics at this time is demonstrated by this 'wow' factor of Caesars approach. Instead of castigating Caesar for his un-roman ways, they cheered him on. Would the senate have risked their own popularity with the masses to bring Caesar down to size? Yes, because the senate was not concerning itself with civil popularity and instead was wrapped up in its own tiny competitive world. Caesar was a threat to that world, not to Rome as a whole though perhaps there many senators who couldn't see the difference. By this time the imperial mindset was already in place in roman life, it only needed a strong individual to take the reigns. That doesn't mean the senate couldn't react - Augustus was clearly anxious to avoid the same fate that Caesar suffered, but notice also the dismay of Caesars assassins when they discovered the rest of the world was't supporting them. So altough the prosecution of the senates enemies was possible it wasn't necessarily desirable given that the senate were no longer as popular with roman citizenry as certain individuals, and that by then the senate wasn't held in the same regard as rulers of the roman world that it once had been.

Edited March 4, 2008 by caldrail

[M. Porcius Cato]

Having *some* legal mechanism of succession certainly would have helped clarify things for the law-abiding citizens of Rome. The risk, however, of a hereditary mechanism of succession is that you risk getting some retarded or insane fool on the throne, which completely undermines the authority of the position.

But the people willing to assassinate or mount coups are not inherently law abiding people

That's true, and it's why small crimes (like Clodius' Bona Dea crime or Caesar's crossing into Germania) must be prosecuted mercilessly--a ruthless application of the law will catch petty scoundrels before they go on to greater crimes.

No arguement there, but notice how limp the prosecution was.

 

Caesar was never formally prosecuted, so that prosecution was as limp as an invisible unicorn is pink. Clodius' prosecution, however, was a true cause celebre, and it cost the young scoundrel dearly.

[Kosmo]

The emperors tried to establish a system of dinastic succesion but this failed because the emperor had to much authority and no other group or institution could be called to resolve the dispute in an usurpation and because the empire itself was ilegitimate.

French history with the amazing dinastic continuity it's a good example of how diverse factors usually prevented dinasty change. The church, the nobles and the population had no sympathy for usurpers. It's hard to believe that a Joanne d'Arc would have rised to defend the Flavii.

Politics in imperial Rome was interesting only for the people in the administration and the army. The people changed but the policy remained the same so the only fight was about who got the job.

[caldrail]

Caesar was never formally prosecuted, so that prosecution was as limp as an invisible unicorn is pink.

Exactly. the senate never pushed it home. They threatened Caesar but never actually caried it out. As far as I can see, the senate believed th threat was enough, but Caear being the risktaker that he was, decided to call their bluff.

 

The emperors tried to establish a system of dinastic succesion but this failed because the emperor had to much authority and no other group or institution could be called to resolve the dispute in an usurpation and because the empire itself was ilegitimate.

One or two emperors did but tats was natural since romans tended to look upon successors of a family as a chip off the old block (indeed, some careers were based on that premise). However, this meant that an emperor was more likely to promote the chances of favorites, people they liked and could groom for success, rather than simply relying on their own children being up to the job. Succession wasn't automatic, it required political manoevering in Rome (or outside of it more often than not)

 

Politics in imperial Rome was interesting only for the people in the administration and the army. The people changed but the policy remained the same so the only fight was about who got the job.

Thats part of my point. Interest in politics had faded as the republic drew to a close. Not completely though. As in Britain today, if a politcal cause was relevant and stirred enough emotion, there would still be public demonstrations. However, points of principle had become less important than bread and circuses.

Edited March 4, 2008 by caldrail

[Lex]

I don't think it would have helped.

You'd still always have commanders leading rebellions, usurpers claiming the throne, and secessionist territories in the mix. Or family members fighting for control, no matter what it said in the will or what was approved by the leading figures or factions. There would always be factions that would support the cause of one or another for their own particular reasons or convenience. The law then becomes a nice little piece of paper.

 

Or if the new/candidate Emperor was deemed 'weak' by ambitious commanders or local leaders, then you'd always get the token power-monger who would compete for the prize under whatever pretences they may need, for 'stability' or for whatever reasons seemed most convenient. Especially if they had the support of the local elites, industries or just the masses.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Lex