• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think it would be better to see it as a form of nepotism than monarchy in the cases of the Principate, especially considering the ideological considerations of adoption in Roman society. The Senate could (and in the case of Lucius Verus, did, or tried to until Marcus Aurelius threatened to resign) credibly refuse to appoint an Emperor to the position on the grounds that they did not approve of him. They have a very magisterial process of the exercise of Imperial power, even if it is, effectively, autocratic.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, it still doesn’t read as a straight monarchy, exactly, which is a one part of why I think it’s cool. My impression is that it got there eventually in the Byzantine period. Is that correct?

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yeah, they outright began using the term ‘basileus’ and even the dreaded Latin ‘rex’, with emphasis on Emperors who were biological children of the previous Emperors.

        Still a lot of civil wars and coups though. No amount of monarchy can erase THAT particular Roman tradition.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Still a lot of civil wars and coups though. No amount of monarchy can erase THAT particular Roman tradition.

          I think all of agricultural humanity has to own that one collectively. Not that one family which reigns unopposed forever would be better.