It seems rather suspicious to me that Rome would have 5 good emperors in a row. What are the chances of that being pure coincidence?
I wonder if there was some other factor that caused a wave of noble rule at that time. Anyone have any ideas about this?
Thanks 
Sorry for posting in this area, I hope someone can more this to General Questions
They had 5 good Emperors because thats what an 18th century historian dubbed them.
In reality, the reason is that in this era, the Romans were truly masters of their world and there was little if any internal wars (unlike the past and future) and the Empire did not face any major external threat, Parthia was weak and would eventually fall and the barbarians were not at the gates yet. In contrast with the future when you had endless civil wars and an expansionist Persia. The empire is supposed to have reached its zenith at this point, although they would at times control more territory in the future.
Which five?
AD 96-180. Names escape me at present.
Moved to General Questions.
Remember that those 5 were “adopted” rather than “inherited”, so that is a factor to consider.
Nerva
Trajan
Hadrian
Antoninus Pius
Marcus Aurelius (co-ruler with Lepidus for ~10 years)
There is no reason to doubt that these men were generally capable rulers.
None of them was the son of their predecessor, and all may actually have
been chosen for apparent ability as much as anything. The biggest mistake
by any of them was by Marcus Aurelius when he made his worse than useless
son Commodus heir.
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.
16th century…Machiavelli was the first to single them out (and point out what srzss05 did, as part of his argument against hereditary monarchy.
Seconded. They weren’t outright lunatics, and they fell between two emperors who were especially harsh and despotic (Domitian and Commodus).
I believe Trajan was the son of a predecessor, although not the immediate one, Vespasian.
You’re thinking of Titus. Trajan was the son of a Roman senator.
He was not.
Incorrect.
IIRC the sequence is as follows:
Vespasian was succeeded by his son Titus who was succeeded by his brother Domitian,
who turned out to be one of the megalomaniacs, and was deposed.
Nerva was chosen Emperor by the Senate after Domitian’s fall, and Trajan was chosen
to succeed Nerva while Nerva was still alive. Trajan was from Iberia (Spain) and was
I think the first of the non-Italian emperors. He was at the time of his selection Rome’s
foremost general, but not directly related to any predecessor.
While the men were undoubtedly capable. they were other capable men after that. Septimus Severus for one. They lucked out it many ways as they presided over eras which presented fewer challenges then the past or the future.
During the reign of Marcus Aurelius not only was the Danube frontier overrun
by barbarians, Italy was invaded by a foreign enemy for the first time in ~300 years.
(IIRC last penetration of Italy was during the era of Marius’ preeminence)
Marcus Aurelius proved to be a capable military leader, and was in the process
of resecuring the border when he died on campaign. His reign also suffered
one of the worst epidemics in the history of the empire.
Although there were no such major challenges to the earlier Antonines (as they
are called) going back to Nerva, Hadrian and Antoninus were sufficiently beset
by the inhabitants of Caledonia (now Scotland) to build wall systems to try to keep
them out of Roman Britain. Also Trajan launched successful campaigns of conquest
in Dacia (now Romania) and Mesopotamia (now Iraq). His successor Hadrian gave
up Mesopotamia but held onto Dacia.
Correction-- Lucius Verus was the name of the coruler.
Lepidus was a member of the 2nd Triumvirate (with Octavian and Antony) much earlier.
Mea culpa.
The adopting their heirs thing was also a type of luck. By chance, none of the first four had male children that survived long enough to be considered, so each emperor instead “adopted” an heir who was chosen more for their abilities and the political and military support rather then the chance of their birth.
But it wasn’t really a conscious choice to do it that way and as soon as one of them had an adult son, he was made heir, with generally negative results.
I agree. Rome never figured out a way to institutionalize the idea of selecting an Emperor by merit rather than heredity. Even competent emperors would choose a relative as his successor if it was possible.
One result of this was you got some incompetents put on the throne because their daddy had been emperor. But Rome could have survived some incompetent emperors.
The more serious problem that resulted from this policy were the competent men who saw themselves being shut out of power because they weren’t related to the current dynasty. With no avenue of being made emperor through merit, they resorted to revolts to gain power. The fact that they sometimes succeeded meant any sitting emperor had to regard competent subordinates as a potential threat.
Perhaps these five were also smart enough to quietly kill off the more psychotic among the potential usurpers.
I did not think this was thought to be an accident. For the century or so before, Rome has seen that it was disastrous for an Emperor’s son or other close relative to succeed. Apart from Augustus and Vespasian, both of whom had seized power rather than inheriting it, all the rest of the Emperors up to then, who had inherited power, had been either incompetent or both incompetent and horrible. Nerva, of course, did not inherit the throne either, but was appointed by the senate, and I thought the story was that he had some insight into what had being going wrong (as well as some loyalty to Rome’s old republican traditions), and deliberately introduced the system of the Emperor adopting a competent, honest man to be his heir (rather than a son or relative, corrupted by the luxury of being in the Emperor’s family). This was perhaps modeled, loosely, on the traditional republican strategy of appointing a Dictator in times of emergency, as opposed to the model of hereditary kingship used by the dynasties of Augustus and Vespasian.
As each one was competent and honest, and the first 4 of them selected their heirs well, the system worked well until Marcus Aurelius (a competent and honest ruler in himself) got sentimental, and (perhaps the lessons of the Empire’s first century having been forgotten after several decades of good rule) passed the throne on to his nasty and incompetent son instead.