Why were there so many teenage Roman emperors? In my studies, I set up it easy to break Emperors into types predicated on how someone came to power
Type 1 The Dogface. These men won a civil war and started a new dynasty thanks to that win. samples include Augustus, Vespasian, Diocletian, Severus, Thorax, Julian, and Aurelian.
Type 2 The Politician. These men were kind thrust into power, mainly against their will as a stop gap during times of chaos. samples include Pertinax, Claudius, and vagrancy- whams.
Type 3 The Chosen One. These men were hand- named by the Emperor and espoused as their heir at law at law and son to rule after they failed. samples include Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.
Type 4 The Trust Fund Brad. These men were born into power and owe their spot on the throne to blood ties, nothing farther. samples include Tiberius, Caligula, Domitian, Titus. Commodus, Caracalla, Elagabalus, and Alexander Severus.
Now you may notice a trend- that the Emperors who gained the throne thanks to their birth tended to stink while Emperors who won the throne thanks to skill were enough good. This makes sense though. Who is a better CEO- the joe that works his way over from the bottom, constituting and evolving constantly to further himself and reach the top, or the son of the CEO who is handed everything?
There are some fun exceptions like Alexander Severus who ruled as a suitable, caring, and unbiased autonomous thanks to this stern ma and strong value system. Or Thorax who was a pure monster and won the throne after killing Alexander Severus in his roof and promising the legions a big rise if they backed him.
Homeric race in Rome is a funny thing. ideally, you want an heir at law at law in place when the Emperor dies. If the throne sits vacant every general and governor in the Empire is goon an get the same idea about who should sit on it- “ me ”.
So if the Emperor had a son or close relative, they had 2 choices
- Make him Emperor
- ensure he dies
Say Marcus Aurelius chose to make another man his heir at law at law. Well, that man’s first job formerly taking the throne is to kill Commodus. It’s not particular, but you can’t have a assignee to the throne hanging around. Indeed if Commodus did not want the throne disgruntlement generals may rally around him against his will- and this constantly happened.
But for the sake of stability, having a true- born heir at law at law was noway such a bad idea. With a blood relative coming in line the throne passes hands snappily and without bloodshed. I mean who can argue they have a better claim to the throne than the Emperor’s son?
So if you had a son or son- in- law or bastard that you did n’t want to kill making him heir at law at law is not a bad idea. It will ensure a peaceful transition of power.
These immature men were Norway good Emperors still. They were spoiled , cockered, and without accomplishment in their lives. They grew up in luxury and comfort and Norway had to develop the skill set a general or Senator had to.
So when they took the throne they used their insane wealth and power to have wassails, play music, make palaces, or do whatever sick stuff they wanted.
It makes sense though. Like, imagine a billionaire handing over his empire to his 16- time-old spoiled son. suppose that son is gon na buckle down and run goods well? Now imagine that billionaire is a trillion ire and in command of the entire US army not a suitable picture.
