Britannicus, not Nero

HueyLong

Banned
WI Claudius marries Lollia Paulina instead of Agrippinilla? Lollia had no son easily connected to the Imperial line, so there is no competition for Claudius's heir.

Assuming that he was poisoned by Agrippinilla, Claudius would (hopefully) live longer, and Britannicus would be the clear heir.

What are the effects of no Nero and of an Emperor who is at least near-Claudian in rule?
 

Archdevil

Possibly a longer Julio-Claudian dynasty, which would increase the stability of the Empire tremendously.

After Nero's death, it was basically a free-for-all everytime an emperor died as it provided the precedent that generals would engage in civil war to decide the succesor.
 

Prunesquallor

Probably a stabler government. On the other hand, it's always difficult to say how someone will react to power. History is full of people who died young and so are ascribed all sorts of virtues- look at the elder brothers of Henry VIII and Charles I. Still, Titus, Vespasian's son, was very fond of him, which may say something good for him.
 

WhatIsAUserName

In the beginning, Nero actually lowered taxes, banned gladiatorial fights to the death, and didn't rush into a disastrous campaign in some foreign land or another to get the military's support, which many Emperors would later do. It seemed he was actually fairly popular with the common people before everything went downhill. I know it isn't the POD, but if Nero was removed during his reign as opposed to before he ever came to power, it would actually be a politically damaging move.

If Britannicus comes to power so young, some people might see that as weakness, and may attempt to remove him. That would only bring trouble.
 

HueyLong

Banned
WhatIsAUserName said:
In the beginning, Nero actually lowered taxes, banned gladiatorial fights to the death, and didn't rush into a disastrous campaign in some foreign land or another to get the military's support, which many Emperors would later do. It seemed he was actually fairly popular with the common people before everything went downhill. I know it isn't the POD, but if Nero was removed during his reign as opposed to before he ever came to power, it would actually be a politically damaging move.

If Britannicus comes to power so young, some people might see that as weakness, and may attempt to remove him. That would only bring trouble.
Click to expand...

Caligula and Tiberius also started out as seemingly good rulers. Also, considering that Claudius was likely poisoned by Nero or Agrippinilla, Brittannicus won't be 14 in such a timeline.
 

Burton K Wheeler

Moderator
Archdevil said:
Possibly a longer Julio-Claudian dynasty, which would increase the stability of the Empire tremendously.

After Nero's death, it was basically a free-for-all everytime an emperor died as it provided the precedent that generals would engage in civil war to decide the succesor.
Click to expand...

I don't think Britannicus' succession is going to be much better. Claudius was certainly a capable administrator and military leader, but that was mostly an anomaly, since potential enemies had decided that his physical infirmity equalled mental infirmity and he survived through sheer luck. Britannicus will have the same problems Claudius did throughout his life. Unless he is a truly exceptional leader on the order that no other Roman emperor ever was, there will be intrigues and murders of all competent possible successors. Almost certainly, a power vacuum will emerge which only military commanders remote from Rome will be able to fill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top