09-01-2008, 11:26 PM
The period of Roman history consideredto be the most stable. I have two questions. First is how the Emperors were selected. I have read in one place that each Emperor hand selected their sucessor as Emperor. Another surce suggests that each of these 4 emperors was selected and if confirmed by the Senate.
Which of these was the true selection method? I am assuming since I cannot find the source I read just the other day that the Emperor chose his sucessor and that the senate merely rubberstamped his choice.
If this method had continued and the Emperors instead of chosing their sons as Marcus Aurelius did and screwed everything up but instead had chosen competent men from the Senate or the military in their 40's or later how would this have affcted the Empire?
Would this have been any better than what happened historically? Or can we assume that such a system would have never lasted as far too many men would be enticed to do as Marcus Aurelius did and chose sons who rarely if ever equal their fathers and generally make a huge mess of everything.
Which of these was the true selection method? I am assuming since I cannot find the source I read just the other day that the Emperor chose his sucessor and that the senate merely rubberstamped his choice.
If this method had continued and the Emperors instead of chosing their sons as Marcus Aurelius did and screwed everything up but instead had chosen competent men from the Senate or the military in their 40's or later how would this have affcted the Empire?
Would this have been any better than what happened historically? Or can we assume that such a system would have never lasted as far too many men would be enticed to do as Marcus Aurelius did and chose sons who rarely if ever equal their fathers and generally make a huge mess of everything.
Timothy Hanna
