Deleted the following text from "Artistic License - History": Indeed, Aurelius defied the conventions of Imperial Succession by instituting primogeniture.
It is not true to say that there was a strong norm opposing succession by descent to the role of Roman Emperor. The so-called "Five Good Emperors" (of whom Marcus Aurelius was the last) had, in every case, no suitable offspring to whom they could bequeath their position.
Historically, there was precedent for succession by birthright, being the reigns of Titus and Domitian. Earlier on, Octavian made a HUGE deal of his posthumous adoption by Julius Caesar (noting that this was prior to the coalescence of powers and offices under Augustus that we now recognise as constituting the position of "Roman Emperor"). Augustus/Octavian would almost certainly have loved to bequeath his position to natural dependents, but was stopped from doing so by horrible luck. Nonetheless Tiberius's position as heir was inextricably connected with his adoption by Augustus.
Suffice to say that Roman inheritance systems (and their attitudes to adoption vs natural descent) are complex and very different from ours. Certainly however there was no strong norm saying "an Emperor must not bequeath his office by birthright" or "succession must be merit based". Rather there was a pattern of using adoption to overcome circumstances where there was otherwise no heir available (with everything that this entails about destabilising succession crises etc).
Deleted the following text from "Artistic License - History": Indeed, Aurelius defied the conventions of Imperial Succession by instituting primogeniture.
It is not true to say that there was a strong norm opposing succession by descent to the role of Roman Emperor. The so-called "Five Good Emperors" (of whom Marcus Aurelius was the last) had, in every case, no suitable offspring to whom they could bequeath their position.
Historically, there was precedent for succession by birthright, being the reigns of Titus and Domitian. Earlier on, Octavian made a HUGE deal of his posthumous adoption by Julius Caesar (noting that this was prior to the coalescence of powers and offices under Augustus that we now recognise as constituting the position of "Roman Emperor"). Augustus/Octavian would almost certainly have loved to bequeath his position to natural dependents, but was stopped from doing so by horrible luck. Nonetheless Tiberius's position as heir was inextricably connected with his adoption by Augustus.
Suffice to say that Roman inheritance systems (and their attitudes to adoption vs natural descent) are complex and very different from ours. Certainly however there was no strong norm saying "an Emperor must not bequeath his office by birthright" or "succession must be merit based". Rather there was a pattern of using adoption to overcome circumstances where there was otherwise no heir available (with everything that this entails about destabilising succession crises etc).