wasn’t there a throwaway line or two about the time that there were (IIRC) >three Emperors in one year and a few of the Counts were short of cash?
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:06:08 -0400, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com>were (IIRC)=20
wrote:
wasn=E2=80=99t there a throwaway line or two about the time that there =
three Emperors in one year and a few of the Counts were short of cash?
Don't know about the last part but there were definitely 3 emperor
years in the Roman Empire.
I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and or #2
keel over before they had to fork it out...
Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one other than >whichever Legion was based in Rome.
This is very confusing, as we appear to be mixing up "the Vorkosigan
Saga" and the Roman Empire. And I don't care which was founded on
what.
Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>
So, if this is a contest, the Roman Empire wins by 1 Emperor.
I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and or #2
keel over before they had to fork it out...
Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one other than >>whichever Legion was based in Rome.
They didn't have to be based in Rome. A fair number of Emperors (and
would-be Emperors) were proclaimed to be Emperor by their Legion(s)
and then marched on Rome to expell the current one.
Those were not good times for the Roman Empire. The periods where son >succeeded father for several generations were much better, at least as
far as civil war went.
In article <9mfn7kp293qk8deovljv09rnrin7mmjecp@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:14:18 -0700, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:06:08 -0400, WolfFan
<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
wasn’t there a throwaway line or two about the time that
there were (IIRC) three Emperors in one year and a few of the
Counts were short of cash?
Don't know about the last part but there were definitely 3
emperor years in the Roman Empire.
This is very confusing, as we appear to be mixing up "the
Vorkosigan Saga" and the Roman Empire. And I don't care which
was founded on what.
Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>
So, if this is a contest, the Roman Empire wins by 1 Emperor.
I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and
or #2 keel over before they had to fork it out...
Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one
other than whichever Legion was based in Rome.
They didn't have to be based in Rome. A fair number of Emperors
(and would-be Emperors) were proclaimed to be Emperor by their
Legion(s) and then marched on Rome to expell the current one.
Those were not good times for the Roman Empire. The periods
where son succeeded father for several generations were much
better, at least as far as civil war went.
Adopted sons were best. (And the Romans had a tradition of
adult adoption).
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in news:me1vieF4e2aU1@mid.individual.net:
In article <9mfn7kp293qk8deovljv09rnrin7mmjecp@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>
Adopted sons were best. (And the Romans had a tradition of
adult adoption).
If you exclude adult adoption, I don't think there IS an example of
"son succeeding father for several generatioons" in the Roman
empire. At least if you require "several" to be more than two. I
THINK there's at least one case of two.
(And I haven't systematically checked whether there's a "several"
in the Eastern Roman empire but from what I've seen there doesn't
seem to be a lot of "several" there either.)
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 08:57:16 -0700, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This is very confusing, as we appear to be mixing up "the Vorkosigan
Saga" and the Roman Empire. And I don't care which was founded on
what.
While I've read all or nearly all the Miles books I was pretty sure on
the Roman emperors (surer than on Miles as a matter of fact but hadn't
taken time to look them up again - and all of the following names are familiar - just couldn't remember whether they were in the same year
or over 12 months over two years. (And read both Tom Holland's
Dominion and his book on Rome since April)
Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>
So, if this is a contest, the Roman Empire wins by 1 Emperor.
I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and or #2
keel over before they had to fork it out...
Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one other than
whichever Legion was based in Rome.
They didn't have to be based in Rome. A fair number of Emperors (and
would-be Emperors) were proclaimed to be Emperor by their Legion(s)
and then marched on Rome to expell the current one.
True though when there were rival emperors backed by different legions
with neither in Rome at that point the usual outcome was that each
marched on Rome and fought it out somewhere nearby.
Those were not good times for the Roman Empire. The periods where son
succeeded father for several generations were much better, at least as
far as civil war went.
Even Nero's reign (which was one of those you cited) was relatively
'good times' for the Empire
routinely adopted their successors. (Which was one of the better ways
of avoiding succession crises)
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 12 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 51:50:05 |
| Calls: | 173 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 80,013 |