Most interesting Roman/Byzantine dynasty (up to two votes)

Which Roman/Byzantine dynasty do you find the most interesting (up to two votes)?

  • The Leonid Dynasty (457 - 518)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Justinian Dynasty (518 - 602)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Isaurian Dynasty (717 - 802)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Nikephorian and Amorian Dynasties (802 - 867)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Doukid Dynasty (1059 - 1081)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Laskarid Dynasty (1204 - 1261)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    32
Oct 2018
2,073
Sydney
Which Roman/Byzantine dynasty do you find the most interesting? Up to two votes are allowed.

In 2015 there was a poll of this nature, but it only encompassed the first three centuries of Roman emperorship: Most Interesting Roman Dynasty / Period

As the poll makes clear, I have included periods like the 'Crisis of the Third Century' as options (rather than listing each mini-dynasty from that period).
 
Dec 2012
446
a chaos of 20 years is the most interesting to me at least, so much time so little emperors! I mean it gets even more fun when bulgars are involved. Its a little surprising as well how short the Roman dynasties usually
 
Oct 2018
2,073
Sydney
I voted for the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The obvious choice, perhaps, but each personality seemed much more distinct and unique among that selection of men than their successors.
Yes, I expect the Julio-Claudians will win this poll! I suppose what will be more interesting is finding out who are the runners-up.
 
Oct 2018
2,073
Sydney
Its a little surprising as well how short the Roman dynasties usually
Yes, it's interesting to consider just how short-lived and yet iconic were some of Rome's dynasties. It couldn't have helped that, while there were norms, there were no official rules of succession. To have such rules, at least earlier on, would have been too blatant an acknowledgment of monarchy.
 
Dec 2012
446
why did the Romans never bother to formalize succession laws? Even during the much more explicity autocratic times when they shed all pretence of a republic succession laws were still a problem
 
  • Like
Reactions: DempseyLouis
Oct 2018
2,073
Sydney
why did the Romans never bother to formalize succession laws? Even during the much more explicity autocratic times when they shed all pretence of a republic succession laws were still a problem
My knowledge of this stuff wanes after the fourth century, but maybe someone else has a theory. The Roman emperorship did become more explicitly dynastic with Constantine. He was the first emperor to make an infant into a Caesar (Constantine II; although previous Caesars and Augusti had included children and teenagers), and his propaganda, as far as we can tell, extolled the rightness of dynastic succession much more vigorously than had been done under previous emperors, presumably because, between 306 and 324, he was competing with emperors who had been selected by existing emperors for their supposed merits rather than succeeding a dead emperor through ties of blood, as had been the case with Constantine. So Constantine leaned heavily into his blood ties, having them treated as superior to other forms of legitimacy, and even invented a familial relationship (a fictive tie of ancestry with Claudius Gothicus). And yet, despite all of this, the succession to Constantine was a mess, with Constantius II butchering most of the male members of the extended family.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
669
Thrace
My second vote would have been on the Flavian Dynasty. They had everything: The stellar emperor in Titus who was cut short :( as Roman an emperor you'll ever see in Vespasian (self made man) , and the alleged tyrant who suffered damnatio memorae but was most likely a capable leader in Domitian.