Jesus, why were so many Roman Emperors murdered?

I doubt Jesus browses this board

>>2972626
>pay praetorian guard to murder emperor for you
>become emperor
>someone pays praetorian guard to murder you
and so on

>>2972626
More Roman emperors died at the hands of other romans then all other causes of death combined.

>>2972626
They had no real system of succession, and the assumption was that if you murdered the emperor you could become emperor. This was a serious factor in Rome's decline.

Because Rome wasn't a Western civilization

>>2972690
True it was a Mediterranean civilization

>>2972626
How many of those suicides were to preventy a more grisly imminent death?

>>2972644
Estoy aqui, amigo

>>2972626
Who's the "unknown"

>>2972626
>unknown
who?

>>2973225
>>2973229
Romulus Augustus, Odoacer didn't kill him and sent him to live with some relatives so its unknown what his eventual fate was

>>2972651
I think they should've had elective dictatorship for life and not the anarchic "murder all your opponents until there's no one left but you" shit

>>2973299
Technically they did. The Senate was supposed to have the authority to elect the new emperor. The only problem was the army often had their own candidate in mind, and when these two claimants clashed, the result was usually civil war. This was a major factor in the whole third century mess in particular.

>Kill Emperor
>Become Emperor
>Someone else sees this and gets an idea
>Repeat

>>2972626
Because the Empire was shit. Rome died with the Republic.

>>2973383
Top kek.

>>2973383
the late republic was even shittier than the empire

>>2973383
>Because the Empire was shit. Rome died with the Monarchy.

fixed

>>2973416
This. Rome was in terminal decline from 753 B.C on.

>>2972626
a better graph might multiply the emperor by years reigned, so a "revolving door" emperor that only reigned a few months before being assassinated would get 0.3 while augustus would get ~40.7

>>2973396
the late republic is pretty much a countdown clock to the empire forming. honestly whoever thought it was a good idea to displace the backbone of your armies to create the latifundiae shouldve been proscripted

>>2972626
The unknown one is spooky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwAG-DnWhiY

>>2973548
>t. pliny

>>2973548
>2100 years after the death of the Gracchi brothers
>Optimates are still mad

File: 1494019871417.jpg (46KB, 566x562px)

46KB, 566x562px

>>2973431

>>2973256
No look at the image. It says from 14 AD to 395 AD

>>2972644
Jesus is everywhere bro

>>2973433
why would this be better?

>>2976177
Maybe Quintillus then? All the surviving histories that mention his death contradict eachother.

Historia Augusta says he was killed in a mutiny, Saint Jerome's Chronicle says he was killed in battle fighting against Aurelian, and the Epitome Historiarum says he commit suicide.

>>2973383
>>2973396
>>2973416
>>2973431
That's what they call a cancerous growth I guess.

>>2973201
At least one was from depression.

>>2972626
Because Emperor was a military dictator under a different name. It wasn't really even an actual office and new emperors would just have a bunch of powers voted to them by the senate. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

File: l-Maecenas-Presenting-the-Liberal-Arts-to-Emperor-Augustus.jpg (353KB, 1200x931px)

353KB, 1200x931px

....so from this thread I can infer that Rome really still thought of itself as a fucking Republic with something like a very powerful military dictator at its head that gets replaced in informal ways?

>Renaissance people fapped to this.

>>2976378
Only for the first century or so. It was very clear after a while that there was no republic

>>2976399
The political theater lasted a bit longer than that, Commodus was the first emperor to change the titles to make them more in line with reality, so it was closer to 200 years. Even then it wasn't until Aurelian a century later that emperors started using the title dominus et deus (lord and god).

>>2972626
Crisis of the Third Century. It became too easy for a middle ranking officer with some friends to murder the emperor on campaign and assume his role.

Didn't the Byzantines switch to blinding and exile?

>>2972646
Because Emperors dont have full control over their senate or their own guards.

The US copied few things from Chinese government system. That's to replace the administration whenever there's a new president/emperor.

This system of replacing the administration with your own people is what creates a safe zone for the president. Not so for the Roman empire because their government wasn't completely controlled by the Emperor.

>>2976425
Yeah but in terms of attitudes surely many Romans would have known the empire was a Republic in name alone, no?

>>2972646
Why didn't anyone before Constantine get rid of them? There were plenty of emperors who took Rome with an army. What could a bunch of prissy palace guards do against a few legions?

>>2977041

A lot of the legislation underpinning the Principate remained in force until Basil I initiated a law reform in the late 800s. Some of it even dated back to the Republic.

>>2978572

The Praetorians were drawn from the legions, typically those of the reigning emperor, and they were expected to join him when he went on campaign. They weren't parade troops by any means.

>>2977041
The first-century CE satirist Juvenal wrote, “Long ago the people shed their anxieties, ever since we do not sell our votes to anyone. For the people—who once conferred imperium, symbols of office, legions, everything—now hold themselves in check and anxiously desire only two things, the grain dole and chariot races in the Circus” (Satires 10.77-81).