How did constantly changing emperors affect the strength of the roman empire?

Answer 1

Changing emperors in itself did not have a bearing on the strength of the Roman Empire. If anything, they could provide longer tenure of office than elected rulers because they ruled for life.

In the first century A.D. there were emperor who increased the strength of the empire by ruling wisely. In the Crisis of the There Century there was military anarchy. Most emperors where men of humble origins who rose through the ranks of the military and were proclaimed emperors by their troops. Most of them ruled briefly and were murdered by their soldiers who had proclaimed them emperors. Often this was because the soldiers did not want to fight a war against the troops of another pretender to the imperial title or against usurpers. This anarchy weekend the empire. It even led to its spilt. Britain and France created a breakaway empire which historians call the Gallic Empire. Zenobia of Palmyra (in Syria) overrun the Levant (Syria, Lebanon and Israel) and Egypt and parts of Turkeyand created her own state, which historians call the Palmyra Empire. The emperor Aurelian reunited the empire by defeating Zenobia and negotiating reunification with the Gallic Empire.

Answer 2

j

Answer 3

j