How did the Julian half of the post-Augustus Julio-Claudian dynasty

>>2586337
You know, the julio-claudians weren't actually bad, Nero aside (and Caligula if the senate recrds are truthful, but he basically spent his youth being raped by senile Tiberius so his insanity was likely more environmental than genetic).

>>2586337
julius was barely related to augustus (grand uncle or something?) and tiberius was LITERALLY his wife's son.

I still don't know how the julio-claudian are considered

>>2586337
>Tiberius
Competent general and administrator, he just couldn't gather the energy to really give a fuck so he handed over government to flatterers, killed said flatterers at the behest of informing flatterers, then spent the rest of his life on Capri being a bad example to
>Caligula
Who saw how the proudest and most ancient families of Rome bent over backwards for Tiberius, so he spends the entirety of his reign making jokes at their expense, leading to his assassination and replacement with
>Cladius
A cripple who swung between competency, senility and being a petty ass to everyone around him. Pretty messed up family life because he was too busy making himself look busy, sent off one wife in a fit of autistic rage and married
>Nero's
Mother, who ruined his life by making him Emperor, then trying to be his Empresses. After getting rid of his mum he was free to act and sing about matricide and style himself after Apollo.

Every Julio-Claudian was fucked up. The only reason Augustus wasn't the same was because he was too busy being a non-entity to inconspicuously gain power. Genetics had nothing to do with his success.

>>2586858
Caligula was Augustus' great grandson.
Claudius was his wife's grandson and his own grandnephew.
Nero was his great great grandson and his great grandnephew.
They're all related.

>>2586858
Rome wasn't particularly fond of hereditary autocracies at the time. The 'adoption' method also made the Senate feel like they had retained some power since they could discard candidates altogether or, at the very least, force the emperor to take certain measures if he wanted his adoptee to be oficially recognised.

Yes.

>>2586337
Well, Republican Romans didn't like monarchy for a reason. If the populares were so bend on dispensing with the Republic they could have at least switch it to elective dictatorship of some sort and got people like Marius, Sulla and Caesar instead of their retarded third cousins from their uncle's side somehow reaching positions of power men like Scipio Africanus and Pompey could only dream about.

>>2587008
But sulla was an optimate

>>2587008
Marius, Sulla and Caesar aren't exactly the epitome of good government. Rome was more stable from the death of Augustus to the rebellion of Vindex than it was at any time during the Crisis of the Republic.

>>2586337
>How did the Julian half of the post-Augustus Julio-Claudian dynasty manage to be so universally terrible?
They really weren't all that bad. Tiberius and Claudius were quite good, albeit senile in the end. Caligula was pretty hard to analyze due to all the propaganda floating about. Nero was the only real bad one.

This said, you need to remember that the ones who got to be emperor were actually the bottom of the trashcan. Think of Germanicus, Drusus, etc. Every emperor was the like 3rd-5th in line to inherit.

>>2587008
>Well, Republican Romans didn't like monarchy for a reason.
Not a very good reason. One stooped in exaggerated legend honestly.

>>2587035
>search through the Julio-Claudians genealogy for people who died young after putting a few successful campaigns under their belt
>"Yeah, this guy would've been better than the guys we got because I hate them

t. Suetonius, Cassius Dio & Tacitus.

>>2587053
Let's be fair. The likes of Germanicus & co were raised from birth to become if not the next emperor at least top level generals and governors. The likes of Claudius and Caligula were only meant to be invisible and a fuccboi respectively. Is it hard to imagine that they may not have been the most qualified candidates for the purple?

>>2587025
I didn't imply otherwise. But he is an example of a man getting appointed as dictator and stepping down after he is done. And also not starting a dynasty.

>>2587062
Certainly better candidates, but I take issue with the idea that they were somehow infallible. Caligula and Claudius had their good points, but no is willing to say that Germanicus and Drusus had bad ones.
It's like arguing the Nazis would somehow win if they had "X."

>>2587035
>This said, you need to remember that the ones who got to be emperor were actually the bottom of the trashcan. Think of Germanicus, Drusus, etc. Every emperor was the like 3rd-5th in line to inherit.
I think unexpected claimants succeeding the throne is not an unusual phenomenon in monarchies and it heavily calls into the question the claim that monarchies are better than republics because rulers are prepared from early birth to rule.

Nero would probably have been better off if his mother hadn't been using him to live out her power fantasy and he got to be a performer or a gladiator or something instead.