4 ms·
My memory was that the emperor adoptions were more pragmatic than anything, either because the emperor didn't have a son or as insurance against a power struggl
by brutusborn 4y ago
My memory was that the emperor adoptions were more pragmatic than anything, either because the emperor didn't have a son or as insurance against a power struggle caused by a single son dying. It's been a while so I could be mistaken.
This is the same mechanism that business succession planning reduces risk. Failure to train and groom new talent for leadership roles is a good way to ensure a company dies with its current staff.
- rsynnott 4y ago> My memory was that the emperor adoptions were more pragmatic than anything, either because the emperor didn't have a son or as insurance against a power struggle caused by a single son dying. Yeah, generally, but they're just the most famous examples (because emperor); this was standard behaviour for the time if you had something to pass on and didn't have kids. Adopting adult men was really commonplace in Roman society; Roman infant mortality was _astronomical_. The Japanese adoptions mentioned above were pragmatic, too. Arguably, it's unfortunate that the custom died out for European aristocracy (though it did continue to some extent for normal people). A _huge_ number of wars were caused by failure to produce an heir.