The Five Good (Roman) Emperors. How adopted heirs was shown to be a good thing.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22521]

The Five Good (Roman) Emperors. How adopted heirs was shown to be a good thing.

The Five Good Roman Emperors reigned between 96 AD to 192 AD. This was where the Roman Empire peaked, and this was considered to be the best time for the Roman Empire.

The Five Good Emperors were, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.

Though, these Emperors were not saints. They conquered lands, but they also oversaw the building, repairs, and maintenance much of the Roman infrastructure. Such as roads, buildings, aqueducts. Some of the roads are still used to this day. Emperor Trajan was voted by the Senate of his time as the best Emperor in Roman history. 98AD to 117AD. And he expanded the borders of the Roman Empire to its peak. And he had vast public works projects to modernize (for the time) much of the Roman Empire’s infrastructure.

The is not to be Not to be confused Year of the Five Emperors, which came after the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

The person who coined the term “Five Good Emperors” was Niccolo Machiavelli, in 1503, over 1300 years after the end of the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Machiavelli was a man who knew history and politics. Likely more so than anyone else in history.

What Machiavelli noted was unique from this succession of emperors was that they were all adopted. There was no direct bloodline. The emperor adopted their successor into his family to later become Emperor.

After the end of the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Empire begin succession by bloodline, which the Roman Empire sliding quickly to its down fall.

The point I am making is that having an adopted heir maybe wise in some cases. And that there is the possibility that the adopted heir may not squander his inheritance, but he may actually build onto that inheritance.

Chances are if you took the red pill early, you do not have children. With the risks and complications of with women to have children being to risky. And even if you have children, more than likely their mothers will turn the children against the father. So, even then, such children would make for poor quality heirs.

I know there are MGTOW here that are well off. There are a few of you. And I respect you. But, I am sure you do not want to have all you worked for destroyed by greedy relatives, or seized by government, at your death.

So, I am pointing out how there is the possibility that picking a younger male heir, that is not blood related, can still lead to the fruits of your labors continuing after your death. That what you built will go on beyond you.

[TuneoutParticipant]

The Romans were ahead of their times on many fronts,
too bad the early Europeans didn’t take a page from that and prevent centuries of Royal intermarriage and constant turmoil.

Lifes a bitch,but you don't have to marry one!

[HitmanParticipant]

Lots of boys wait to be adopted right now. .
If I had the money I would do it in a minute !

[ShinyParticipant 2307]

Interesting way to broach an important subject. I definitely think older MGTOW adopting, or at least mentoring, younger fellas is a great idea.

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Excellent analysis. I like the way you tie it in with modern day MGTOW philosophy.

[Author]

Posts