Hereditary Succession is and has almost always been a double edged sword. It is usually the cleanest, most straight forward way of moving the entirety of the empire into a new hand. Without a doubt, emperors who grew up in the household of a previous emperor were almost always poor administrators and often weren’t interested in ruling aside from the absolute power that went with it.

Not always, but in most cases. The best leaders were forged in the fight to outwit other Roman politicians and generals. Often the best, were always the first members of a dynasty who ensured there family was the leading power in the empire.

Julio/ Flavian/Claudian -> Octavius/Augustus Caesar essentially was a super competent senator that created the political process that made him the first emperor.

His adopted son, was less charismatic. Tiberius hates in sources, looked like a good administrator, but wasn’t really interested in being a leader. After this we are only a few generations away from Caligula. Who is the prime example of why hereditary rule is bad.

But once the dynasty is deposed and a civil war occurs you again have competent leadership that wins the war but you are only twenty years or so away from Hadrian who is kind of crazy/psychotic.

If you are interested in reading up about Roman history. My prof in uni who taught the Roman Empire wrote a book that is a decent recount of the civil war (Augustus/Pompey/Antony) on to late Byzantium.

Ancient Rome: A military and political history

Christopher S. Mackey