This was interesting but I have to admit I was confused. What do you mean there was no criteria and no rules? And what were the qualities that made one man "the most capable" of becoming Emperor? It sounds like playground stuff. It makes the roman empire seem like an over-the-top melodramatic opera.
Usually, the qualities that made them the most capable were the ability to raise a large enough army to threaten everyone else. The praetorian guard were the only legion allowed anywhere near Rome and they swore loyalty to the emperor personally (so, as opposed to the senate and the people). It's a very persuasive thing to have 9,000 heavily armed men on hand at all times.
Apart from that, there was no constitutional or legal need for an emperor at all and, hence, no rules about who could be one. To become a senator, you must be a minimum age and have a minimum amount of money. Not emperor, though. The emperor was just the man who managed to manoeuvre himself into a position to do the job, either through military might or by succession.
Vespasian became emperor because he won the series of civil wars in AD 69. He was a rather lowly born general with a not particularly glittering career who was sent to Judea by Nero to put down the Jewish Revolt precisely because Nero thought that someone like Vespasian could never be a threat to his own power. Vespaisn just timed his response perfectly, won the battles, and then became the bloke with the biggest army in town.
Your description of it being like an over-the-top melodramatic opera is absolutely accurate.
But there were never any rules that said the emperor must be of such-and-such a family, or that he has served for 20 years a senator, or that he is strong and intelligent. If you had a big enough army and you could murder the other guy, then the senate didn't have much choice but to recognise you as emperor or find themselves floating down the Tiber.
This was interesting but I have to admit I was confused. What do you mean there was no criteria and no rules? And what were the qualities that made one man "the most capable" of becoming Emperor? It sounds like playground stuff. It makes the roman empire seem like an over-the-top melodramatic opera.
Usually, the qualities that made them the most capable were the ability to raise a large enough army to threaten everyone else. The praetorian guard were the only legion allowed anywhere near Rome and they swore loyalty to the emperor personally (so, as opposed to the senate and the people). It's a very persuasive thing to have 9,000 heavily armed men on hand at all times.
Apart from that, there was no constitutional or legal need for an emperor at all and, hence, no rules about who could be one. To become a senator, you must be a minimum age and have a minimum amount of money. Not emperor, though. The emperor was just the man who managed to manoeuvre himself into a position to do the job, either through military might or by succession.
Vespasian became emperor because he won the series of civil wars in AD 69. He was a rather lowly born general with a not particularly glittering career who was sent to Judea by Nero to put down the Jewish Revolt precisely because Nero thought that someone like Vespasian could never be a threat to his own power. Vespaisn just timed his response perfectly, won the battles, and then became the bloke with the biggest army in town.
Your description of it being like an over-the-top melodramatic opera is absolutely accurate.
But there were never any rules that said the emperor must be of such-and-such a family, or that he has served for 20 years a senator, or that he is strong and intelligent. If you had a big enough army and you could murder the other guy, then the senate didn't have much choice but to recognise you as emperor or find themselves floating down the Tiber.