Why did Rome never figure out stable succession?

I mean they had like 1,500 years.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Same reason why humanity hasn't
    People themselves aren't stable

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pure cope, it's a medshit problem. Always was. The rest of Europe had far more stable succession up until they decided to drop monarchy as a whole.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the rest of Europe had far more stable succession up until they
        Say what? The rest of Europe had also unstable successions, look at all the wars,the civil wars on England and the instability of the HRE

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The CCP does it just fine

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rome was an extremely centralized state but it didn't have any stable institutions more powerful than individual strongmen for the majority of it's history. The powerful were not beholden to the laws of Rome except insofar as they wished to be.
    There was no institution that could enforce the law on a powerful man except another powerful man. Augustus had set up a rudimentary police/firefighting force with the Vigiles, but they could only enforce the law on those without any power at all (Runaway slaves and the like) and operated solely in the city itself. Any enforcement of institutional norms was reliant on appeals to those who held actual power. A rogue general had to be hunted down by a man who could personally command an army. This gave an enormous amount of power to individuals bound only to not seize power by personal loyalties. And an enormous amount of power to gain due to the centralized power of the state.
    But also because the institutions were so weak the average person had little faith in them. Why should Randomus Legionarius give two bits of a shit about the Roman senate? He's being paid by his general out of spoils and their own fortune.
    And while an actual citizen of the city of Rome itself may have some loyalty to the state due to institutions like the Curae Annonae, outside of that city most people were heavily reliant on a patronage network with local big wigs who they would obviously be more loyal to.
    And really this doesn't ever actually change much until the fall of Rome.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    i like the explanation that by the time the byzantines were running things, the seat of emperor was just another office. anyone could be emperor, but they had to have the consent of enough of the army and royal court to actually keep power. i wouldnt call it a democracy, but being emperor required a lot more participation than a traditional monarchy. most people might say that the constant civil wars make make this system inefficient, but 1500 years seems to prove otherwise.

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    because that would be basically admitting that the empire was a monarchy and even to the bitter end the Romans would refuse to admit it was.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >wear crown
      >totally not a monarchy

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Better yet
        >Wear crown
        >Call yourself "Basileos" from the 600's essentially meaning king/despot
        >Arrange political weddings with other monarchs trying to cement the dynasty
        >Rule with feudalism, with divine right and everything
        NOOOOOOOOOOOOO WE ARE NOT A KINGDOM REEEE REEE MAMA MAMA REEEEEEEE

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          It is not exclusively a kingdom thing.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Eastern Roman state never truly embraced feudalism. The whole structure of holding land in return for service did not exist for much of its existence outside of the periphery of the empire.
          Even with the rise of local Katepanos you still did not have a real feudal structure, but something closer to Mexican style Caudillos.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >here's your crown bro

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        most gaudy shit I've ever seen

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          oof. I thought only Christ was King in their moronic ideology.
          This is why they have the Trinity larp, so they can slot themselves in while both saying:
          >I'm not God/Jesus/Supreme
          >I am God/Jesus/Supreme

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        that's still the hungarian crown

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The fact of monarchy was already established by the Flavians. They weren't pretending like being the Emperor was just a super special republican office of infinite power anymore and they hadn't for literally 1000 years by the time of the high middle ages. The Emperor was his own office, with it's own power, independent from any other one. They relied on the goodwill of the people, Senate and army (at least officaly) to have it but they did not rely on an arrangement of titles for it

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They weren't pretending like being the Emperor was just a super special republican office of infinite power anymore
        Yes they were
        The senate was required to confirm imperial power until the fourth crusade
        The entire reason revolts happened was because of the ideology of the empire as being a republic and legitimacy coming from popular/military support rather than some monarchial bloodline

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          None of this contradicts what I've said.
          >rather than some monarchial bloodline
          Dynastic legitimacy did exist in Later Rome. The Constantinians and later Valentinians then Theodosians, who linked their legitimacy to being 'part' of the Valentinianic dynasty.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah we’re just lying and being delusional then
            My bad for posting

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          No it wasn't. It wasn't even true in the west. Many emperors were proclaimed by the army, some never even set foot in Rome

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Senate would approve of them being emperor. Look at what happened with Magnus Maximus.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            For some that was a way they legitimitet their rule. But it certainly wasn't required, Thrax didn't need senatorial ascent and acticely fought the senate.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The senate was required to confirm imperial power until the fourth crusade
          Sure, but by then it must have been purely a formality, for the sake of tradition. If the senate can't refuse a nomination ( I can't remember them ever denying it) it doesn't really matter.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I’ve always felt like a lack of legitimacy played in a role in Roman instability, especially during the earlier empire the emperor was just whoever was strong enough to hold the title, and if they slipped up just even a little bit they would be usurped by the next guy angling for the position. Rome was a military dictatorship with an out of the control military with a thirst for gibs that only slowly evolved into a monarchy, but even in the later empire a usurper was seen as legitimate. The Chinese dynasties by comparison had much more control over their armies and had a very established sense of legitimacy that made the Emperors position far stronger. (Confucian just hierarchy and Mandate of Heaven) A random general couldn’t just overthrow Louis XIV and establish a new dynasty, the Emperor of Japan is so legitimate that the Japanese literally just built a new system on top of it instead of daring to get rid of it.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >peasants above merchants and craftsmen
      What the frick is this shit?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        It was the Confucian philosophical hierarchy, so even though they weren’t well respected in reality merchants were still very influential, think sort of like how the Shogun and the Daimyo are technically lesser than the Emperor and the court nobility. Also there were classes outside this classification like the untouchables burakumin or the Shinto and Buddhist clergy.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The merchants, traders, and peddlers of goods were viewed by the scholarly elite as essential members of society, yet were placed on the lowest of the four grades in the official Chinese social hierarchy, due to the view that they do not produce anything, only profit from others' creations. This was in spite the fact throughout Chinese history, the merchant class were often wealthy and held considerable influence above and beyond their supposed social standing. The scholars' attitudes towards commerce and business was almost universally apparent in their writings which denounced the merchant class as greedy and lacking moral character.[citation needed] It was also unacceptable for scholar-officials to engage in personal profiteering outside their official salary, even though by the Song period they were using intermediary agents to handle their anonymous business affairs for them.[22] Merchants were seen as somewhat parasitic to the needs of all other groups in society, since it was acknowledged that they used the goods that others produced and made their own profits from them. In essence, they were seen as business savvy, but not morally cultivated enough to be leading members of society or highly venerated representatives of Chinese culture.

          >Both farmers and artisans were placed on a higher tier than merchants because the two former groups produced crops and manufactured goods, essential things needed by the whole of society. The merchants were seen as merely talented at business and trading, and were often seen as greedy and even parasitic to the needs of all other groups.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Roman succession was kino, get shanked by bodyguards when you've embarrassed yourself enough

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm honestly glad they didn't, it made the history of Ancient Rome / the ERE infinitely more interesting than any other historical country tbh

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    i mean, technically the post-roman barbarian kingdoms eventually evolved into a successions of rome

    Christianity, rule of law, architecture, etc.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The United States of America figured out stable succession by popular sovereignty, peaceful transfer of power, and checks and balances

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is no such thing as stable succession. Brutus did nothing wrong by trying to save the republic.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *