Thread replies: 2
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1463748909528-his.jpg (596KB, 1387x786px) Image search:
[Google]
596KB, 1387x786px
So, with the collapse of the Western Empire and various barbarian tribes in the former Roman territories actively Romanizing themselves, why did none of them take up the Roman model of succession, the old "throne's yours if you can take it dude, we'll accept you"?
In the Eastern Empire this was never thrown out, they were having civil wars right up to the mid-1300s, when the Empire had less land than modern day Greece.
The way we in the west formed cults of personality around royals, was this a deliberate attempt by early societies to avoid the chaotic civil wars that afflicted the Roman Empire, or is it something that just incidentally sort of happened?
>>
>>3034209
Roman succession was based on the existence of a Senate and a citizenry to support a claimant. Barbarian tribes, no matter how Romanized they might become, still regarded themselves as tribes swearing personal oaths to a tribal chieftain. If they were to give political power to Roman citizens and senators to support new rulers, they would be diluting the power of their own tribesmen.
Thread posts: 2
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1