The Roman Imperial Succession

by John D. Grainger

John D Grainger analyses the Roman imperial succession, demonstrating that the empire organized by Augustus was fundamentally flawed in the method it used to find emperors. Augustus’ system was a mixture of heredity, senatorial and military influences, and these were generally antagonistic. Consequently the Empire went through a series of crises, in which the succession to a previous, usually dead, emperor was the main issue.
The infamous ‘Year of the Four Emperors’, AD 69, is only the most famous of these crises, which often involved bouts of bloody and destructive civil war, assassinations and purges. These were followed by a period, usually relatively short, in which the victor in the ‘crisis’ established a new system, juggling the three basic elements identified by Augustus, but which was as fragile and short lived as its predecessor; these ‘consequences’ of each crisis are discussed.
The lucid and erudite text is supported by numerous genealogical tables and dozens of depictions of emperors.

Genres: History

336 pages, Hardcover

Published February 28, 2020

Reviews

[Robert Neil Smith]

In The Roman Imperial Succession, John Grainger sets out to uncover how Roman Emperors became accepted in their enormously powerful position. This is not as easy as it seems: no one established a constitutional process for the handover of power. Yet there were over eighty Emperors. Grainger considers their accession, which was generally facilitated by a small group of wealthy and powerful men, though the army often had a great, and sometimes total, say at times. A dynastic connection helped too, but not always.
Grainger puts any confusion in the process at the door of the first Emperor, Augustus, and his personal and somewhat ad-hoc arrangements. That personal dynamic also usually meant that the living Emperor arranged his successor, with the obvious attendant problems of potential usurpation. The Imperial system itself was unstable, argues Grainger, through factionalism and the long ideological and nostalgic shadow of the Roman Republic. He works his way through all this by examining the various crises that came at the end of dynasties and how they were resolved, at least until the next crisis.
Grainger does a good job of untangling a complex subject, and he does so in an engaging blend of narrative and analysis. He also uses his sources well, particularly for the periods when sources were patchy at best. He is let down a little by some cheap looking dynastic family trees added to the text, but on the whole I enjoyed reading this book and generalists interested in the mechanisms of Imperial power transfers will too.

[Gavin O'Brien]

I would highly recommend this enthralling lesson in Roman Imperial History which does everything to demonstrate Grainger's skill as not just a Greek but also a Roman historian by focusing on an often overlooked yet central and always volatile process in Roman society - the ascension of the emperor. .

Setting himself the challenge of analyzing the patterns and procedures of imperial succession to the roman throne, Grainger challenges the accepted and all too general view that to be Emperor rested entirely on ones control of the army and that the army and its Praetorian elite were the king makers and breakers of the Roman world, whilst other elements, popular and senatorial support, were secondary or with little real relevance.

Whilst acknowledging the place of the army in the process of creating and maintaining the emperor, beginning with Caesar and Augustus, Grainger does much to show the central role of the Senate in the elevation of a new ruler. Though often dismissed as mere formality, Grainger demonstrates that Senatorial body remained, at least until the early 4th century, as a powerful and often potent force in legitimizing or denouncing a ruler. Indeed the acceptance of Caligula was by no means a sure thing, requiring careful actions on that emperors part, whilst the elevation of Claudius was also heavily contested with debate before his eventual acceptance. This is very strongly seen in the 3rd century were several senatorial appointee's would struggle for control over military appointee's.

Running alongside this is a discussion of the army and the Praetorian Guard, the latter popularly remembered for its tendency to murder and appoint emperors of its own accord, Claudius and Severus Alexander being two well known examples. But Grainger argues effectively that these incidences were usually the work, not of the guard as a whole, but individual and high ranking members with social connections. Mass proclamations meanwhile by armies or the Guard more often ended in failure or did not last long, since they lacked Senatorial approval, which most of them sought.

Moving to the 4th and 5th centuries Grainger shows how, following the 3rd Century Crisis, legitimacy moved closer towards bloodlines, something which has always been present but was now more greatly expanded upon, and more importantly the legitimacy of belonging to the imperial line stretching from Constantine right up to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 during which time the rules of succession had again been transformed.

Overall Grainger's book is as enjoyable as it is insightful and should definitely be added to the reading list of anyone interested a wider view of Roman history and looking to understand more than the traditional 'military' view of an emperors succession.