[Zhang Fei]

Also, most Roman Emperors were military leaders throughout the Byzantine period all the way up till the Fall in 1453. If I understand you correctly, simply being a military leader in itself wouldn’t be problematic.

I meant to say that for a while, the Emperors themselves were successful military leaders - it wasn't possible to become Emperor without winning a (civil) war of succession.

[0beron]

[i]I meant to say that for a while, the Emperors themselves were successful military leaders - it wasn’t possible to become Emperor without winning a (civil) war of succession.[/i]

Indeed, it guaranteed in certain cases that the successor was the best man for the job, or at least the best at doing all of those things, administering provinces, influencing allies, isolating enemies, that made for an effective leader during that time period.

Although, Christianity did make for SOME smoother transitions, in some cases a perspective emperor would resign and allow a more able man take his place, and rather than killing his opponents, a new occupant of the throne would simply blind his enemies and put them in a Monastery, but that’s another thing...