Stable sucession system for the Roman Empire(the whole and unified empire)

[Sertorius126]

Trajan the Optimus Princeps Parthicus Maximus? There’s isn’t really any evidence to support this unlike Hadrian who actually explicitly had his lover declared a god. Sure Trajan never had any children, but that likely meant he was likely firing blanks/was sterile like other Roman Emperors like Justinian were. Augustus tried to have sons with Livia, but they eventually stopped trying because pregnancy was dangerous for her. There was also a chronic issue of infertility generally among the Roman aristocracy as well.


That's not really enough evidence to say he's gay though, unlike Hadrian for example. Keep in mind that these terms were often used to slander political opponents. Julius Caesar after he was stationed in Bithynia when it was a Roman client state, was slandered by his enemies as being the Bithynian King's lover. Julian the Apostate was also hated by the Christians who retook power after his death, so all historiography after him would generally be hostile to him.


Trajan also adopted his closest kin: Hadrian who was his maternal cousin. Though Trajan didn't really like Hadrian and was persuaded by his wife who was one of Hadrian's principle supporters. Trajan and Pompea Plotina became Hadrian's legal guardians when he was around 10-11 years after his parents died. After Trajan's death, some army officers wanted to succeed Hadrian, but one of the reasons why Hadrian of all people took the throne was because Pompea Plotina said that Trajan declared Hadrian his heir on his deathbed.

Dude, Cassius Dio practically tells us “he spent all his time getting drunk and sleeping with boys, but it was all in good fun, and always consensual” Trajanus was gay and proud, and we can rest assured that’s no slander, no ancient source would ever slander the man, and as long as you weren’t the one getting buggered, it was totally fine by Roman standards. Julius Caesar, in fact, wasn’t slandered for sleeping with a man, but for playing the part of the “wife” in that relationship.

Same for Julianus, it’s no wrongful accusation, Ammianus tells us that he was a chaste man who never contemplated sex with either men or women, and since Ammianus was one of his supporters, I don’t see why he would lie.

 

[Shurik]

The Senate already did this. Tiberius and his successors were already invested with the power to succeed the previous Emperor. But when the Julio-Claudians died, there now was no legitimate dynasty allowing for various army generals to press their claims to the throne. If Rome has a long enough lasting dynasty, then this manner of succession would become normalized. Though the Senate itself had very little legitimacy and by the time of Tiberius, it became little more than a social club for the Roman elites. There was talk among the Senate of Restoring the Republic after they assassinated Caligula (he wasn't actually as bad as an Emperor as he's made out to be), but that was quickly stifled after the Praetorians acclaimed Claudius as Emperor.

However, supposedly, Claudius was only declared emperor after he was discovered by the Praetorians, hiding behind a palace curtain. The assassins were still on the loose, and had already dispatched Caligula's wife and daughter. And supposedly, the only thing that saved Claudius, was his being evacuated by the Praetorians.
So, if they had succeeded in finding and killing Claudius as well...
Would someone else (who?) have been tapped for the job?
Or would there have been a better chance for a restoration of the Republic?

 

[Silver01]

Make it a requirement that you had to publicly declare a successor upon taking power and have that decision ratified by the Senate? Even if the Senate was a token formality it does make the whole affair much more organized.

The Byzantines had that with Co emperors and still that did not turn out well since like the Romans any general who had enough support could take the throne

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The Byzantines had that with Co emperors and still that did not turn out well since like the Romans any general who had enough support could take the throne

Well the Byzantines/Romans never had a dynasty lasting over 200 years. The Palaiologoi meet this criteria but they don't count because the Empire was collapsing under them. If you have a long lasting dynasty like the Capets it can work. They managed to rule France for almost 900 years transitioning France from an unstable and fragmented elective monarchy into becoming a strong state with a peaceful transition of power from father to son. The Capets had their sons essentially made Co-Rulers. Thus when they died, an election was not needed since all senior honors and authority transfers over to the new King. By the time of Philippe II Augustus this hereditary succession had been entrenched with this practice being abandoned after him.

If the Romans have a dynasty that lasts long enough it's possible that hereditary dynastic succession becomes entrenched. The Byzantines' loyalty to the Macedonians after all was absolute. When rumors of a conspiracy against Theodora Pophorygenita spread, an angry mob of citizens marched to the monastery that she was at. They presented her the Crown, but Theodora who had gotten used to monastic life refused. The Mob then stormed the building and clothed her in the Imperial Purple crowning her Empress and parading her to the Imperial Palace. When rumors that Constantine VII was assassinated spread an angry mob rose up against Romanos Lekabenos' sons who tried to mount a coup against Constantine. If a dynasty like the Macedonians continues this loyalty to the dynasty would have continued.

 

[Silver01]

Well the Byzantines/Romans never had a dynasty lasting over 200 years. The Palaiologoi meet this criteria but they don't count because the Empire was collapsing under them. If you have a long lasting dynasty like the Capets it can work. They managed to rule France for almost 900 years transitioning France from an unstable and fragmented elective monarchy into becoming a strong state with a peaceful transition of power from father to son. The Capets had their sons essentially made Co-Rulers. Thus when they died, an election was not needed since all senior honors and authority transfers over to the new King. By the time of Philippe II Augustus this hereditary succession had been entrenched with this practice being abandoned after him.

If the Romans have a dynasty that lasts long enough it's possible that hereditary dynastic succession becomes entrenched. The Byzantines' loyalty to the Macedonians after all was absolute. When rumors of a conspiracy against Theodora Pophorygenita spread, an angry mob of citizens marched to the monastery that she was at. They presented her the Crown, but Theodora who had gotten used to monastic life refused. The Mob then stormed the building and clothed her in the Imperial Purple crowning her Empress and parading her to the Imperial Palace. When rumors that Constantine VII was assassinated spread an angry mob rose up against Romanos Lekabenos' sons who tried to mount a coup against Constantine. If a dynasty like the Macedonians continues this loyalty to the dynasty would have continued.

Also that the Byzantines and romans had a habbit of power hungry general at the worst possible time that would prevent an emperor from achiving something great for the stability of the empire see manzikert and the crisis of the third century the 20 years anarchy

The only way I can see it in the eRoman empire is the continuation of the Claudio line
One more option is that the Nerva–Antonine dynasty with no comudus to screw up .

Another one a is the Constantinian rule continues

Maybe if justinian successor where all the same level if not better than Maurice

Heck my timeline is also one where the heraclians rule and have ruled for about 2 centuries but even due that dynastic primogeniture has not been made legal
There is also what you say about the Macedonian one

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I think a potential solution would be to lean on the Senate as a mechanism for a Roman Elective Monarchy and complete the transition. Maintain the division of Imperial and Senatorial provinces, but make it so that the Senate had to vote on a successor (with a nominee of the previous Emperor given a boost of 10% of the vote to ensure a strong candidate is there). That successor would need to be so old, so much experience, which was common for other positions.

Basically, have them formalize the role. Heck, put in a Julius Caesar lived PoD and you might see him do something like this and fix the broken system in the process.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

I think a potential solution would be to lean on the Senate as a mechanism for a Roman Elective Monarchy and complete the transition. Maintain the division of Imperial and Senatorial provinces, but make it so that the Senate had to vote on a successor (with a nominee of the previous Emperor given a boost of 10% of the vote to ensure a strong candidate is there). That successor would need to be so old, so much experience, which was common for other positions.

This would be hard to enact in practice and is in reality too convoluted to pull off. Simple dynastic succession from father to son was also generally what the Army preferred as it created a clear line of succession. This was why Marcus Aurelius had to make his son his heir. It spared Rome a Civil War. Plus during the reign of Caesar, the Senate had generally lost the respect and prestige it once held. The precedent had already been set for an army to simply march on Rome with its generals imposing what he wished. Plus the Senate was seen as a bunch of ineffective plutocrats. When Augustus resigned his Consulship, an angry mob of people stormed his house and demanded that he retake power. Plus when Augustus ruled, his rule was so well that no one, not even the Senate itself wanted its old powers and responsibilities back. There were talks of the Senate reasserting itself after Caligula, but that was quickly shut down by the Praetorians. Elective monarchy is not really stable either as there would be be disputes between rival candidates. If say one candidate won by one vote the would be Emperor would become a fierce rival of the other and Civl War would almost certainly erupt. WIth primogeniture the line of succession was clear and easy to follow. Had the Julio-Claudian dynasty stayed in power, it could have easily established this precedent. It was already well on its way to doing so in otl.