• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Other Roman Emperors

Aznavour

Well-known member
Published by SLP
Often I wonder, what if the Julio-Claudian Dynasty had lasted longer? Then I remembered, that the conditions didn't exist in the First Century CE/AD to allow such a feeble edifice to sustain itself without men of the stature of Caesar and Augustus, or the latte Five Good Emperors, the institutions of the Principate could not lead to a system any more stable than a 70s South American Military Junta, or a Mafia Family, so once the sum of all political power and great offices of the state befell upon men like Nero and Calugula, it all came tumbling down.

No amount of Great Men of History, no matter how great, could have made the first Roman Dynasty last for any significant lenght of time, but perhaps, given the right POD (X heir does'n't die young, Sejanus is purged earlier, X Emperor dies earlier, etc) and right member of the Julio-Claudian family tree , one can get better results, or at least make them last an even century.


Nero Claudius Drusus (38 BC to 9BC), Drusus I or Drusus the Elder, son of Livia Drusilla, stepson of Augustus, brother of Tiberius, father of Germanicus and Claudius. One of Rome's greatest generals at the time of his death.

Germanicus (15 BC to 19AD) son of the above, adopted son of Tiberius older brother to Claudius, father to Caligula, one of Rome's most popular and talented generals at the time. Twice consul, avenger of the Teutoborg forest.

Gaius Caesar (20 BC to 4 AD) son of Agrippa and nephew to Augustus. Consul and commander of the Eastern Provinces, achieved peace with Parthia, but campaigns in the East broke his health and mind.

Lucius Caesar (17 BC to 2 AD) son of Agrippa and nephew to Augustus. Died of illness.

Drusus Julius Caesar (14 BC to 23 AD), Drusus the Younger or Drusus II, son of Tiberius, brother to Germanicus, who's political career he mirrored, albeit not his military one. Popular like Germanicus, twice consul, he might have ruled alongside the general, if not for his death and for Sejanus.

Drusus Caesar (8 to 33 AD) son of Germanicus, grandson and heir of Tiberius. Victim of Sejanus' ambition.

Nero Julius Caesar (6 to 31 AD) son of Germanicus, brother to Drusus Caesar, also ran afoul of Sejanus, by virtue of existing.

Britannicus (41 to 55 AD) son of Claudius, lost favor and his position as heir to Nero after his mother's downfall.
 
I tackle this question in the second chapter of my next Alt Hist book, 'Eternal Caesars', which Sealion is bringing out shortly, so you'll be able to see my views in detail then. Put briefly, I concentrate on the survivals of (a) Caius Caesar, Augustus' eldest grandson , who died in AD 4 (son of A's daughter Julia by his lieutenant Agrippa); (b) Germanicus, who would have been 52 if he had lasted until Tiberius died and succeeded him; (c) Tiberius' son Drusus Caesar, a couple of years younger than Germanicus and his successor as heir to Tiberius when G died in AD 19 (d) Brittanicus - assuming that Claudius or his freedman adviser Narcissus catch Agrippina's murder-plot in 54 in time and execute her.

I first thought up this series of twists to Roman history when I was watching the BBC adaptation of 'I Claudius' as a teenager in 1976, and it does have implications for our understanding of Roman history. Some historians have tended to be rather sniffy about Julio-Claudian succession arrangements and argue that they were inferior to the 'choice of the best man not the closest relative' by the Antonines; but in fact most of the chosen heirs under the JCs were competent and experienced, if somewhat headstrong or keen on expensive military glory. If it had not been for a series of freak early deaths plus possible poisonings, the outline of JC history would look a lot better and not be dominated by the eccentric , cruel, and probably psychologically unbalanced Caligula (though his failings until his final years have been exaggerated and he may have been relatively sane until an illness after his accession) and the paranoid Nero (though he was more capable than sometimes thought and left a reasonable reputation outside the capital and the elite). Both Caligula and Nero seem to have been unable to cope with the stress of not knowing who was plotting and resorted to lashing out in all directions, though only after a longer time with the initially 'good' Nero - a sign of unstable characters hereditary to the family? Possibly inherited from the hard-drinking 'showman' Mark Antony, Claudius' mother's father?

Caius was somewhat arrogant and spoilt from what little we know of him, and likely to have rushed into a major war with Parthia or the Germans to win kudos and loot had he succeeded Augustus - and overstretched resources? Possibly the same can be said of Nero Caesar, Germanicus' son, who was easily outmanoevured by Sejanus so not good at politics; he would have succeeded Tiberius had both Germanicus and T's son Drusus died but T not then relied on Sejanus. if the Empire had more legions in either Germany or Mesopotamia as a result of their wars, no troops to spare to invade Britain? Similarly, I would see Germanicus as taking on the Germans, possibly to the Elbe, if he succeeded Tiberius, to complete his work there of avenging the Teutoberg disaster which T reined in in AD 16-17. Britannicus, had he succeeded Claudius when the latter died naturally (possibly around AD 60-65), would have been young and with no military experience (born in 41), so possibly a puppet of his ministers eg Narcissus - but probably less erratic and showy than Nero and more acceptable to the nobles.His best friend in OTL was the future emperor Titus, so I would see T as a possible husband for B's sister Octavia and if he had no children Titus could succeed him and keep the Augustan line going. This friendship could be Vespasian's way to become chief adviser to Britannicus?

There's also the chances of junior relatives of the JCs in the female line taking over, eg if Nero was murdered before he had time to kill them (eg Rubellius Plautus, son of Drusus' daughter,or one of the Silanus family who were descended from a sister of Caius and Lucius Caesar). But in any event, if Germanicus has better security and doesn't get poisoned in Syria in 19 (presumably by the main accused , ex governor Piso, whether or not Livia put him up to it) or Drusus doesn't get poisoned in 23 (probably by his wife,Germanicus's sister, but the allegation may be later spite) Tiberius would have a far better reputation. He can retire early to Capri leaving G or D in charge not Sejanus, and there is no reign of terror - though the feud between T and the elder Agrippina, G's wife, is a problem. With Germanicus, Drusus (said to be a bit brutal but effective), or Nero Caesar as emperor in 37 there is no Caligula - though if the Julio-Claudian line peters out into remote descendants via the female line I can see popular generals turning on a poorly qualified or under-age emperor at some point.

Turn the story round for the Antonines and have the, not the JCs, hit by bad luck and you could easily get a civil war or incapable emperor after 98 and they get the bad historical press instead. What if Hadrian had faced a civil war in 117-18 as he has a dubious right to the throne and Trajan's top generals turn on him, or H is succeeded by his first choice, the ailing Aelius Caesar, in 138? Alternatively , if Marcus Aurelius' two other sons do not die as children one of them could be co-ruler with Commodus and rein him in or succeed him if he
is murdered - no civil war in 193. Or Septimius Severus has enough of his scheming, arrogant elder son Caracalla and kills him or dumps him on an island, as Augustus does to Agrippa Postumus - so the stabler younger son Geta succeeds alone in 211 and there is no Severan collapse.
 
It seems like favouritism towards Augustus - and the senatorial historians - to raise Augustus and Caesar as gods and say the whole stinking procession of their dynasty wasn't up to the job. Tiberius and Claudius were pretty capable and Nero seems to have had some strengths. The heirs-that-never-were also seem like capable men. Dynastic succession is a business of chance - the Julio-Claudians could probably have gone on significantly longer with simple better luck. I'm not convinced that the eventual emergence of 'pure' adoption was hugely more stable.
 
Nero is an interesting case of differing interpretations - even if his 'good period' (as defined by respectable conservative 'elite' writers like Tacitus and Suetonius, ie behaving normally and listening to the Senate) was partly due to his being a teenager uninterested in administration and being guided by his ex-tutor Seneca and his Praefect Burrus, when he ended their influence c.61 (aged 23/24) he did not immediately turn into a 'despot' . Rather, his behaviour became more erratic, he sought out new advice from courtiers (often of low birth) who the Senate despised, and he experimented with showing off his artistic interests and performing and racing chariots in public. The smooth running of govt was hardly affected and hence the provinces continued to be governed well and projects funded, though - partly due to his paranoid replacing of competent but suspected veterans governors and commanders? - their leadership was ready to revolt in several areas by 68 and troops morale was poor.

It has been argued that Nero was consciously promoting a religious 'cult' of the Emperor as equal to the gods to add to unity and win over the more deferential public in the East than just being megalomaniac with ideas like his giant statue of himself as the sun-god in Rome, grand reception and crowning of his Armenian client king Tiridates, Eastern tour etc. His Greek cultural promotion and participation, eg the Neronia Games and his Olympic Games visit, show his passion - and political vision? - for putting Greek civilization on a par with Roman in bringing the Empire together, not just showing off his artistic abilities. He shared that with Hadrian (also disliked by some of the elite as a 'Greekling') and he shared his fondness for a showman-style autocracy in a grand Palace in Rome with Domitian (also called a tyrant). There was 'method in his madness', and arguably if he had not gone paranoid too and had had Hadrian's political skill plus a stable marriage and better ministers he could have lasted for decades. (The 'Emperor as divine figure living in a sacred Palace dressed in Eastern robes' idea was revived successfully by Diocletian in the 280s). It was his lashing out at the elite and their fear that 'if we don't get him first he'll turn on all of us', as with Domitian and Commodus, that finished his chances. Perhaps if he had had capable and fairly honest ministers like Claudius' Narcissus and Pallas rather than the venal courtiers led by the scheming Tigellinus he could have been less prone to executing people on suspicion and trusting the wrong men; 'Household government ' had worked well enough for Claudius. Or if he had had a politically capable wife like his mother Agrippina, and trusted her - a sort of new Livia to stabilise him.



A 'pure' selection process of the next ruler was set up by Diocletian in 293 so we can see its likely fate. He had no son or brother so he had to select a non- male relative heir; instead he and his co-ruler Maximian each chose a trusted and capable younger man as heir and these became deputy emperors ie 'Caesars' (the Emperor was now titled the 'Augustus'). Then D and M abdicated in 305 and these men, ie Galerius (East) and Constantius (West) took over as full Emperors after 12 years as deputies - Constantius having overthrown the rebel admiral Carausius and his successor Allectus who had taken over Britain . D also made his heirs select his choice of their new 'Caesars'. But this went horribly wrong - the selection left out both Constantius' son Constantine 'the Great' and Maximian's son Maxentius, and when Constantius died in 306 his troops elected Constantine as ruler of his part of the Empire (Britain, Gaul , Spain etc). Maxentius then revolted too and took over Italy, and Maximian - who had not wanted to abdicate at all - returned to power with him but later turned on him .A round of civil wars followed, with Constantine (West) and Licinius,Galerius' deputy (East), the only men left standing in 312 - and then C destroyed Licinius too in 324. Diocletian, in retirement at Split in what is now Croatia, was still alive to witness most of this. Human nature, ambition and troops preferring a genealogical heir to an unknown elected civilian won over a neat bureaucratic system - and the chances are that it would have done so if 'selection of the best man by the current ruler' had come in earlier too.

If the current Emperor is a respected and feared figure and/or he chooses a popular and capable man with troops at his beck and call and no well-known and supported rival, and the latter can succeed quickly when the ruler dies, then a selection of the best man can work. As with Trajan to succeed Nerva in 98, Antoninus Pius to succeed Hadrian in 138, and to a degree Hadrian to succeed T in 117 (though he ended up executing potential rivals to be on the safe side). But this is more due to the hard politico-military facts on the ground than to respect for the system - a system would have had to work for a number of changeovers to be accepted by the crucial players (eg governors with troops) as too dangerous to challenge. It would have better chances if the military system of the Late Empire is adopted earlier, ie giving the Emperor a large standing army (comitatus) in his capital that is too big for provincial governors to think they could defeat it - and even then some tried to do so in OTL. And if mischance lands the Empire with a feeble or under-age ruler plus a major disaster, eg invasion by Persia or the Germans, the vultures (probably a provincial
commander who has defeated the invaders?) will move in on the Emperor in Rome...
 
Back
Top