That's not to say Epictetus does not have lots of worthwhile things to say, but that there are other facets to living a good life in addition to what was stoics prescribed.
So, even when the prime example of stoic philosophy, Marcus Aurelius, is given the sole reigns of power to the prime example of an empire at it's height, Rome in the Nerva–Antonines, it falls apart at the hands of familial duty/love.
One thing to remember about Romans is that there is not 'thesis' to them. They did whatever they needed to do at the time. For example: look at the Roman Honor of the Republic days. It was fierce, passionate, and swift. Any slight was dealt with in total violence and societal honor was worth much more than your life. Compare that to the stoics, where nothing could 'slight' a person, only their internal life was important, and society was to be nearly forgotten. The Romans were, if anything, adaptable to the extreme, which is why they lasted nearly 2000 years.
An example is that people lost children much more often.
I do too, but "compassion > stoicism" is not something science can prove. That's why I find articles like this one a little silly.