AHC: Stable Roman Imperial Government

[mrmandias]

Well, a Roman concept of the Mandate of Heaven would be immensely useful and would permit a way to *have* dynastic changes and even civil wars that produce them that are less devastating to the overall system.

Here would be my proposal.

Caesar isn't assasinated. But what his enemies' fear is true--he is becoming increasingly unstable and power hungry. At the same time, he is as charismatic, ruthless, and talented as ever. Result: he has himself crowned king, engages in adventurism to the East, massively reorganizes the Roman state, and slaughters a whole bunch of his enemies. He is eventuall assasinated some 15 years later.

His reforms don't really stick but they do succeed in destroying much of the prior societal basis. There is a big period of chaos and another civil war. Augustus again comes out on top, but not as much as a supposed restorer of the Republic. His claim to power is as successor to the divine Ceasar. He does recreate some Republican institutions and Roman rule, its not pure autocracy, but his basis for rule is neither the Republic nor his own merit, its descent from the God Julius.

After a few generation of rule by the Julians, the machinery of state is breaking down, there's another civil war, and some other ruthless soldier-statesman comes to power. But after him the state is again ruled by primogeniture on the Julian model, just with his descendants instead of the Julians. The Roman theory here is that the divine blood is diluted after a while, as evidenced by disorders and ineffectual rulership, and so a new demi-god is ordained by the deified protectors of Rome to establish a new dynasty.

Based on hints from Plato, maybe the educated classes suspect that the new demi-god is actually a reincarnated Caesar. In time, you might come to have some kind of state religion where Boddhisavata types give up their divinity to be reincarnated to rescue the state of Rome.

 

[Mikestone8]

So, the challenge is this. With a POD between the battle of Actium in 31BC and the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180AD, develop a stable Roman imperial government.

Was the Principate all that unstable?

There was one brief spell of civil war after Nero's death, but after that none for over a century. Even when the Flavian line was extinguished, a peaceful succession was arranged. Things didn't get really unstable until well into the 3C, and it's not obvious what reform could prevent that.

 

[Esopo]

Was the Principate all that unstable?

No, it wasnt, at all, contrary to the old historiography prejudices.
Actually the principate until the third century crisis (which had several reasons, not all of which were political) is one of the most stable examples of form of government in ancient times.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Was the Principate all that unstable?

There was one brief spell of civil war after Nero's death, but after that none for over a century. Even when the Flavian line was extinguished, a peaceful succession was arranged. Things didn't get really unstable until well into the 3C, and it's not obvious what reform could prevent that.

Peaceful in the sense that Nerva "voluntarily" adopted a man who just happened to be an extremely powerful and popular general at the time.

 

[Avitus]

Well, my two (probably innadequate) ideas are:

(A) A strong, powerful successor for the Julio-Claudians survives, and has male heirs. The perfest figure for this would probably have been Germanicus, since he was capable and pretty much expected to succeed, and at the time of his death had three teenaged sons. Make him survive, have is sons survive to adulthood and have children of their own, and you hava a legitimate, father-son style dynasty, rather than the insane patchwork that was the Julio-Claudians.

(B) With several PODs in Constantine the Great's reign, you make Crispus survive, have Constantine invest more power in the Patriarchs (like both the Eastern and Western Churches later did anyways) and stress the divine right to rule (even if he is ambiguous on what god grants that right). Then you have a stable dynasty, a moral statement by an important figure regarding succession, and an increase in power for a nonmilitary group with no prospects of becoming emperor.

 

[RousseauX]

At the beginning of every Empire is a strongman who ascended on the back of military might. What makes the rise of Augustus so especially poisonous?

Because he pretended that he wasn't and the Republican pretensions he undertook meant that there was no way you could go through with any of the normal stabilizing mechanisms that imperial monarchs used to rule their empires. Medieval monarchies for instance, was reasonably stable with a succession system like Primogeniture inheritance (by reasonably stable I mean there usually isn't a civil war when there is a male successor). The Roman Empire on the other hand never managed to formalize a hereditary imperator even though it ended up being one in practice much of the time. At the same time it was clear that the old Republican stability of Rome was gone as well. This meant that there would be civil war essentially every time an emperor dies by the crisis of the third century and any time afterwards.

 

[RousseauX]

The Chinese secret was that they had a theory explaining why you needed a strong founder but that forced his successors into legitimacy (the Mandate of Heaven theory).

Rome never really had that. If Caesar had lived longer and gone through with more of his schemes, you still would have a had a civil war at the end, but if Caesar's successor was of his blood the government would be less likely to be a fake Republic as with Augustine but instead a claim of divine heritage from herculean Caesar. Which would allow a type of primogeniture set-up.

Diocletian and Constantine tried the divine right thing, but ironically enough that also worked out really badly. The former because Diocletian was actively against primogeniture. And dividng up the empire was fundamentally contradictory with primogeniture succession.

Constantine's example is more interesting, and possibly indication that divine right primogeniture might not work, since Constantine's sons pretty much ensures that it wouldn't be possible by literally murdering the vast majority of their own families, and then proceed to split the empire Gavelkind style.

 

[Elfwine]

Post-Constantine's sons we do see a relatively functional dynastic set up emerging, but that was with the imperial office firmly established and the issue of people stabbing you for trying to be be king dealt with.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Based on hints from Plato, maybe the educated classes suspect that the new demi-god is actually a reincarnated Caesar. In time, you might come to have some kind of state religion where Boddhisavata types give up their divinity to be reincarnated to rescue the state of Rome.

I think that's a really interesting idea.

 

[Elfwine]

I think that's a really interesting idea.

Too bad the initial part about Caesar destroying his enemies and making himself king is more likely to end him than the problems, because the philosophy is very cool.

 

[mrmandias]

Too bad the initial part about Caesar destroying his enemies and making himself king is more likely to end him than the problems, because the philosophy is very cool.

Actually I agree that it ends Caesar eventually, I just think you need more destruction of the Roman state first to get a primogeniture situation to develop.

 

[Elfwine]

Actually I agree that it ends Caesar eventually, I just think you need more destruction of the Roman state first to get a primogeniture situation to develop.

The problem is that it isn't going to end him "eventually" (living another fifteen years makes him seventy one), him making himself king and turning on his opponents as needing all the creativity of a Roman execution is going to have them combine to get rid of him.

And I don't see that ending better than OTL for him, or differently - maybe on a different day, but certainly not with the old Republic's crud cleared away.

 

[Timmy811]

Post-Constantine's sons we do see a relatively functional dynastic set up emerging, but that was with the imperial office firmly established and the issue of people stabbing you for trying to be be king dealt with.

So, can this be done earlier? Would it only take one of the earlier Emperors to have several direct noncrazy and relatively competent descendants take the throne in succession for that to emerge, or would it take more?

 

[Elfwine]

So, can this be done earlier? Would it only take one of the earlier Emperors to have several direct noncrazy and relatively competent descendants take the throne in succession for that to emerge, or would it take more?

I wouldn't rule it out, but I'm not sure how soon.

The main thing is, you need to do more than legitimize a dynasty, but the whole idea that the mantle passes on by some lawful method to the successor instead of being available to anyone who can take it - which requires developments that might be hard even for competent Julio-Claudians, say.

 

[Timmy811]

I wouldn't rule it out, but I'm not sure how soon.

The main thing is, you need to do more than legitimize a dynasty, but the whole idea that the mantle passes on by some lawful method to the successor instead of being available to anyone who can take it - which requires developments that might be hard even for competent Julio-Claudians, say.

Why not right off the bat with Augustus being followed by Drusus, Germanicus and then Nero (different from the OTL emperor). That's a succession chain of stepson, son and son (and Nero, from what I know wasn't unbalanced like his brother Caligula, so the line will probably go further than that). The first two were said to have had Republican sympathies, but being in actual power would have likely snuffed them out.

 

[Elfwine]

Why not right off the bat with Augustus being followed by Drusus, Germanicus and then Nero (different from the OTL emperor). That's a succession chain of stepson, son and son (and Nero, from what I know wasn't unbalanced like his brother Caligula, so the line will probably go further than that). The first two were said to have had Republican sympathies, but being in actual power would have likely snuffed them out.

Sure. That works for that dynasty. But what happens when it dies out?

 

[Wolfpaw]

Based on hints from Plato, maybe the educated classes suspect that the new demi-god is actually a reincarnated Caesar. In time, you might come to have some kind of state religion where Boddhisavata types give up their divinity to be reincarnated to rescue the state of Rome.

In the "Rome Survives" TL I like to kick around, I have Solism (the Roman state religion mixing Neo-Platonism w/ Sol Inuictus worship) view Caesar as a martyred incarnation of Sol Inuictus. My Roman State is admittedly more of a "Western Byzantium," though, due to it not possessing anything east of Thrace or south of Gibraltar.

 

[Esopo]

The Roman theory here is that the divine blood is diluted after a while, as evidenced by disorders and ineffectual rulership, and so a new demi-god is ordained by the deified protectors of Rome to establish a new dynasty.

A concept like this is utterly alien from roman mindset, let alone *before* the third century's crisis.
The reason for which rome didnt have a mandate of heaven is that it wasnt compatible with the formal republican values and mores which, contrarily to what many anglo-saxon historians state, remained extremely important until the birth of the dominate.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Sure. That works for that dynasty. But what happens when it dies out?

Well I guess the hope is that one of them establishes a more stable means of succession.

 

[Timmy811]

Sure. That works for that dynasty. But what happens when it dies out?

Unless I'm misremembering things, no Roman blood dynasty had anything close like that staying power. If Nero just lives to sixty it means that one family will have reigned unrivaled for 98 years, and that's not counting any issue he might have. I think that's enough time for an ideology revering primogeniture to start making headway in society.