Stolengood
Banned
And, of course, Hadrian went through so many adoptive heirs it was ridiculous... a very good thing Marcus Aurelius was as loyal a brother as he was an emperor.
There was a claim on wikipedia that M.A offered to adopt Pompeianus and make him a Caesar at one point but the latter declined.You may be right as I've just checked that the claim doesn't have a citation.
Although,it's not the first time an emperor has appointed two heirs.If he appointed Pompeianus a co-heir with Commodus,it will be just like the days of M.A and Lucius Verus running Rome again,with Pompeianus taking the role of M.A. and Commodus taking the role of L.V. If M.A is aware of the deficiencies of his son,I don't think it'd be surprising if he would have tried to find a suitable co-heir to babysit his son.
Augustus appointed his grandson and his step-son/son-in-law as joint heirs initially.I see no problem with adopting an heir in addition to your natural son considering the later is really incompetent,especially since Pompeianus' son happened to be M.A's biological grandson.As for the tetarchy,that's a totally different ballgame.Well, I don't know where wiki has this information from, and your solution of two emperors could be a very interesting POD. But there's still the legitimacy problem around.
Commodus as M.A.' natural son has IMHO a stronger claim to the throne than Pompeianus. A bit like Augustus as Caesar's adoptive son had a stronger claim than Marcus Antonius who was simply a general and friend of Caesar's.
Now you might object that Rome was still a republic, that the Principate wasn't hereditary, that the Romans didn't know the medieval principle of claims and succussion orders.
But remember what happened just one century later when the tetrarchy dissolved because some (one?) of the Augusti had a son who wanted to be emperor instead of the actual Caesar. It seems that the Romans thought a natural son to be closer to his father than an adoptive son. And that's the whole problem.
Augustus appointed his grandson and his step-son/son-in-law as joint heirs initially.I see no problem with adopting an heir in addition to your natural son considering the later is really incompetent,especially since Pompeianus' son happened to be M.A's biological grandson.As for the tetarchy,that's a totally different ballgame.
I think Commodus would have let Pompeianus handle the shit while he indulges in parties and gladiatorial games.The problem about his reign seems to be the fact that he wasn't really interested in ruling and when he had to kill people,he was trying to kill those who are gunning for his throne due to his incompetence.During Commodus' reign,he left the day to day running of the government to others anyway,I don't see why he wouldn't let his co-emperor handle the governance.In all seriousness,I think Lucius Verus would be another Commodus if M.A wasn't there to handle his shit.Besides,if Pompeianus' the co-emperor,I'm pretty sure that most of the administration and soldiers would be loyal to him rather than Commodus considering Pompeianus was a highly experienced general and thus likely well acquainted with the military.Maybe. Maybe it would've been a perfect solution. But it can work only if Commodus and Pompeianus are loyal both to the decision of their father and to each other. Just like Marcus Aurelius respected Hadrian's wish and let Lucius Verus be the second ruler instead of simply murdering him.
But do you really think that a crazy guy like Commodus would've shared his power with a person trying to control his decisions? And do you really think that Pompeianus wouldn't have tried to overthrow his adoptive brother acting like an idiot?
IMHO, a Geta/Caracalla scenario is much more likely to happen in that situation.
The 5 Good Emperors prevented anything like a civil war occurring any time from 96-180. That in itself is an achievement noteworthy when the rest of the Roman Empire's history is concerned.
Augustus effectively made several people his heir. I'm not sure he ever wanted one heir but several heirs that shared in the political authority he had.Augustus appointed his grandson and his step-son/son-in-law as joint heirs initially.I see no problem with adopting an heir in addition to your natural son considering the later is really incompetent,especially since Pompeianus' son happened to be M.A's biological grandson.As for the tetarchy,that's a totally different ballgame.
Augustus effectively made several people his heir. I'm not sure he ever wanted one heir but several heirs that shared in the political authority he had.
As for Aurelius and Pompeianus, just have Commodus contract smallpox and you have Pompeianus as your heir.
Obviously getting rid of Commodus isn't necessarily essential, nor can Commodus be blamed for the Third Century Crisis. But avoiding his reign and instead having a capable successor to Marcus Aurelius does provide important changes. Someone more in line with completing Aurelius's policy goals with regards to ending the Marcomannic War would leave Rome in a better position militarily to defend against the pressure that will be placed on Rome from the north during the crisis. Also, it provides a longer period of relative political stability, and avoids the decimation of the treasury caused by Commodus. More importantly, butterflies likely mean the Severan dynasty, and their damaging policies (enriching the army at all costs) and dynastic infighting is avoided.Why is it so desperately important to get rid of Commodus?
He wasn't particularly marvellous, but why should his reign harm the Empire any worse than Nero's or Domitian's did?
After all, the real blow-out didn't come until the 230s, by which time Commodus would in any case have been long dead and cremated.
I think it's possible; a sort of Veres/Aurelius relationship, though as someone said when the going got tough, Veres was nothing if not a master delegator, something Commodus sorely lacked.A Commodus sharing power with someone actually interested in administration might be just fine. Most of his issues...that we know of, really sketchy sourcing...seem to have arisen from complacency, idleness or disinterest rather than power-hungry paranoia. By the time he starts having people killed, it's in response to legit conspiracies against him that his idleness had prompted. There have been working partnerships between a popular but disinterested front man and a competent but reticent administrator, which might be an apt description of Pompeianus...not sure that kind of solution was impossible here.
Having a son or not doesn't really matter, as long as no complete fools are able to take power. If say Hadrian raised a son who ended up emperor, and the son was still a decent and capable ruler, then the Roman Empire would prosper as much as if this decent and capable ruler was adopted. Dynasty wasn't as important then as it was in the Middle Ages.But wasn't there an element of luck about it?
How often were you going to get four Emperors in a row none of whom had a son? Wasn't the luck bound to run out sooner or later?
Yeah. People forget that Trajan treated Hadrian like a son and Hadrian did the same for those who picked out as successors.Having a son or not doesn't really matter, as long as no complete fools are able to take power. If say Hadrian raised a son who ended up emperor, and the son was still a decent and capable ruler, then the Roman Empire would prosper as much as if this decent and capable ruler was adopted. Dynasty wasn't as important then as it was in the Middle Ages.
- BNC
It still isn't the same as having them be of your bloodline.Yeah. People forget that Trajan treated Hadrian like a son and Hadrian did the same for those who picked out as successors.
Roman views on family were fundamentally different from ours, and both are from medieval norms. Adoption wasn't really considered lesser...it was a very pragmatic approach, and being adopted was often a boon (remember adoption was almost universally within class, not like street orphans or w/e). So much so that, contrary to later views, the son given up for adoption was conventionally the eldest, and the idea was to have the ablest heir possible.It still isn't the same as having them be of your bloodline.
- BNC
In Rome, there was no difference between a genetic child and an adopted child. Or the difference was so small, that it made no matter in law or culture. It was typically done for maternal relatives, or sororal relatives. Octavian was a nephew by way of Julius's family's female line, and while the father's family was dominant, the maternal family was of exceptional importance as well.It still isn't the same as having them be of your bloodline.
- BNC
Having a son or not doesn't really matter, as long as no complete fools are able to take power. If say Hadrian raised a son who ended up emperor, and the son was still a decent and capable ruler, then the Roman Empire would prosper as much as if this deent and capable ruler was adopted. Dynasty wasn't as important then as it was in the Middle Ages.- BNC
And are we perhaps worrying too much about an Emperor's personal qualities? After all, Nero and Domitian were shrugged off easily enough, while in the 3C many perfectly capable Emperors were just as short-lived as the bad ones.