Nerva chose Trajan for reasons of political expediency. The army was close to revolt so he chose a popular general to consolidate their support.
Also note that even under the five good emperors, the emperors still tried to keep rule within their families, despite a lack of sons. Hadrian was related to Trajan, and was brought up in Trajan’s household. Antonius wasn’t related to Trajan, but Trajan only adopted him on condition that he would make Trajan’s nephews, who were at the time too young to rule, as his heirs.
So again, I think the evidence is that the good emperors still subscribed to the principal of hereditary rule, but a combination of politics and luck made it so that none of them before Marcus really had a chance to put a son in charge.
Which is the same system that gave us Caligula and Nero. (And Elagabalus, who probably wasn’t as bad as his reputation, but was still far from a great emperor, if only because he was a teenager, who acted like it.)
So, part of the luck the Good Emperors had was just not choosing a loser.
(And, as to direct sons, as I understand it, the two direct predecessors to the Five Good Emperors, Titus and Domitian, weren’t really bad - Domitian was unpopular with the senate, but that’s not the same thing, and he’s generally believed, nowadays, to have been pretty good, if a bit on the totalitarian side.)
Wasn’t Hadrian the emperor who decided that Rome would cease expansion? He had a wall built across Britain to fix the northern border-I think he realized that the empire was becoming too large to defend and manage.
In any case, the “five good emperors” were better that their followers-largely because Rome was faced by increasingly hostile border states, as it entered the 4th century.
You need to recall that at this point in time and for some significant period of time afterwards constitutional theory was that the Emperor was simply an extraordinary magistrate, and even in practice there were some significant limitations on the Emperors powers. Rome had been since the end of Kings an oligarchy and was in most ways still an oligarchy. Oligarchies can at times combine the worst elements heredity succession and democracy. Rome certainly did.There was no clear line of succession, so you cannot groom the future leader and the remaining democratic trappings meant that you cannot ignore a popular politician. Plus you have influential families attempting to push their sons with the Emperors family doing the exact same. They lucked out here that the men chosen were so capable and the faced relatively less problems.
Hadrian pulled back from Iraq yes. But that was not the end of expansionism, Marvus Auerulius occupied Iraq again for a while and Septimus Severus expanded the empire significantly in the East as well as reoccupying the Antione Wall in Britain. These conquests would be longer lasting.
Mesopotamia, not Iraq. The area doesn’t get called Iraq until later, and in fact, the Roman province only contained part of what’s now Iraq, as well as a lot of land in what’s now Syria.
True, but I find that using modern day country descriptions helps in providing context. In that way, Arabia Patrea was Jordan, parts of Syria and NW Saudi Arabia and Aegyptus was modern Egypt and a small part of what is now Sudan.
I would add that these five ruled at a time when the Roman government was able to pay the army.
Things got very bad when the troops could not be paid-they might revolt, or even join the barbarians.
It really came down to this-if the treasury could not maintain the army in fighting condition, then all was lost. In the hyperinflations that happened at the end of the Wetern Empire, the currency became worthless-and the soldiers found other ways to get paid.
Could someone explain why it would be surprising to have 5 good emperors in a row? I understand there were some bad ones. But they held an empire together for a long time, these 5 couldn’t be the only good ones.
I didn’t see that “documentary”, but I did see one from 40-50 years ago starring Alec Guiness (as Marcus Aurelius),
and Christopher Plummer (as Commodus) in which MA was poisoned by conspirators who wanted to assure Commodus’ succession.
However, in real history didn’t MA appoint Commodus heir and semi/quasi/junior co-ruler at age 15 or so?
The fact is Rome was doing great as a Republic, and its future would have been best promoted by reversion
to Republican government at any time during the Imperial Era. Unfortunately the power of the military
became and remained too much for the Republican faction.
You are right-- a run of five good Emperors is not surprising.
Here are the first 14 Emperors in order, with red and bold highlighting
for the ones who antagonized enough people to be removed from office:
Augustus
Tiberius Caligula
Claudius Nero (~1 year interregnum with 4 generals vying for power)
Vespasian
Titus Domitian
Nerva
Trajan
Hadrian
Antoninus Pius
Marcus Aurleius (with L. Verus for ~10 years) Commodus
The five straight don’t stand out as much when seen this way.
Commodus was succeeded by Pertinax, the choice of the Roman Senate.
Pertinax was overthrown by the Praetorian guard because he did not give
them enough of a bonus upon assuming office. Consequently Rome entered
a stage in its history known as the “Barracks Emperors” a sort of constant
semi civil war with nearly all Emperors being theater commander generals, so to speak.
Is that a list of crappy emperors or ones that got killed? Because if the latter, Claudius could be included by some accounts, having gotten in the way of his wife, Agrippina
It was a religious issue. The Romans believed that the Gods would only support them in a war if it was a defensive war. But sometimes they really wanted to fight a war and the other side wouldn’t co-operate by attacking them. So Rome would attack and justify it as a pre-emptive defensive war.
