AHC: Stable Roman Imperial Government

Snake Featherston has frequently and eloquently described the flaws of the Roman imperial government. It's legitimacy was based solely on might is right; and while all premodern states (and unfortunately some modern ones) were based on this, Rome in particular was on the extreme end of the scale. There was no religious or ideological base upon which the Empire rested, no divine right of kings or mandate of heaven. There was no powerful imperial bureaucracy, no civil institutions with broad legitimacy. The senate and the discredited institutions of the Republic were impotent, and so in the end there was only the Legions and their generals. When the Emperor was strong as they were during the reign of the Five Good Emperors things went well, but when there was not, the Empire quickly devolved into an orgy of civil war. Given the nature of the system, this was sure to eventually be fatal. It is a testament to the strength of Roman society that their civilization thrived and survived so long despite this crippling handicap.

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. Theocracy (Christianity, Mithras, Sol Invictus, etc), Bureaucracy, Ideology, any method is fair game, just don't divide the Empire into East & West. And no implausible lengthening of the line of Five Good Emperors, maybe they could have six or seven but eventually the system will be plagued by a few incompetent and/or psychotic individuals in succession. The system has to be able to bear it.
 
Wow, that's a very big ask, first of all while I agree with Snake that the Imperial Government was fundamentally unstable I think he slightly overestimates it. There was an element of divine right thanks to the deification of the Imperial Family, an element which the various Emperors frequently tried to boost, though they generally failed.
 

Esopo

Banned
Even if the traditional imagine of Rome in anglo-saxon historiography is the one of a constant civil war among absolute god empersors, the reality is far different, and for long period, the roman state *was* stable, which is more than what we can say than for other states during human history.
 
Okay, how about a government, much like the Republic, i.e. the law applies to everyone but the emperor, rather than being the heir of the old emperor, it was elected at the death of the old emperor. The emperor would be just the head Imperator where the title came from; he would be able to suggest laws to the Senate, which would draw its memebers from not only Romans in rome, But generals, "Babarian" kings that had been Romanized and whose tribes or countries where citizens and from the Civilian population. The Imperator would be given say an army of four legions, with the power to raise more when needed, but would only ever have direct and permant control of the four legions. The other Legions would remain under the command of the Governors, who would be selected by the senate for both adminstrative ability and Military capability. when invading or repelling invaders, the Imperator would be able to raise tempory legions to supplement his legions and the legions of the province
 
Even if the traditional imagine of Rome in anglo-saxon historiography is the one of a constant civil war among absolute god empersors, the reality is far different, and for long period, the roman state *was* stable, which is more than what we can say than for other states during human history.

The Pax Romana is possibly the only period during the required period which could be characterized as "stable" in any sense of the word (and even it had its cracks. Of the five hundred years of the post-Republic era, it lasted one hundred.
 
The Pax Romana is possibly the only period during the required period which could be characterized as "stable" in any sense of the word (and even it had its cracks. Of the five hundred years of the post-Republic era, it lasted one hundred.
These cracks you speak of army Babarian Tribes raiding, for the most part. Everything else was caused by the Romans
 

Esopo

Banned
The Pax Romana is possibly the only period during the required period which could be characterized as "stable" in any sense of the word (and even it had its cracks. Of the five hundred years of the post-Republic era, it lasted one hundred.

Which is an impressively long time for a such large empire.
 
For an ancient society? not at all.
I agree the fact that they were able to maintian the Pax Romania, aside from civil wars is amazing considering the number that they had. I am almost certain that aside from the Julio-claudian emperors that the Empire never had four straight emperors from the same family
 
For an ancient society? not at all.

I'd need to do some research on other ancient societies to do a comparison check.

I agree the fact that they were able to maintian the Pax Romania, aside from civil wars is amazing considering the number that they had. I am almost certain that aside from the Julio-claudian emperors that the Empire never had four straight emperors from the same family

Frankly, this is precisely the issue with Rome. Primogeniture is silly in a modern context, but in an ancient context, it was far more stable than the "Prestige-geniture" which defined Rome. The Pax Romana had four emperors capable of nominating reasonably capable successors, but as soon as that ended, nomination headed straight for the pisser. The Julio-Claudian dynasty followed primogeniture to an extent, but the screwed-up-ness of the family pretty much killed any stability it normally would have granted.
 
I'd need to do some research on other ancient societies to do a comparison check.



Frankly, this is precisely the issue with Rome. Primogeniture is silly in a modern context, but in an ancient context, it was far more stable than the "Prestige-geniture" which defined Rome. The Pax Romana had four emperors capable of nominating reasonably capable successors, but as soon as that ended, nomination headed straight for the pisser. The Julio-Claudian dynasty followed primogeniture to an extent, but the screwed-up-ness of the family pretty much killed any stability it normally would have granted.
The high mortality of the time was a significant factor, heirs were dying off left and right leaving no one to inherit, or worse the crazy. Though I find it odd that European noble families of the middle ages seemed to have less of an overall problem with this despite Roman medicine being significantly more advanced.
 
The high mortality of the time was a significant factor, heirs were dying off left and right leaving no one to inherit, or worse the crazy. Though I find it odd that European noble families of the middle ages seemed to have less of an overall problem with this despite Roman medicine being significantly more advanced.

It helped that a significant and, for either the ancient era or the middle age, unusually large, number of members of the family tended to suffer accidents (when they were feeling subtle) at the hands of power-hungry cousins (when they were lucky). This was with the Julio-Claudian dynasty, now. With the Post-Pax Romana emperors, the accidents tend to be largely traceable to the Praetorian Guard, rival generals, or some combination of the two.
 
It helped that a significant and, for either the ancient era or the middle age, unusually large, number of members of the family tended to suffer accidents (when they were feeling subtle) at the hands of power-hungry cousins (when they were lucky). This was with the Julio-Claudian dynasty, now. With the Post-Pax Romana emperors, the accidents tend to be largely traceable to the Praetorian Guard, rival generals, or some combination of the two.

Even accounting for that the Imperial family seemed to be unlucky, for example Marcus Aurelius had 13 kids, 9 of them died before age of 12 including all the sons with the exception of Commodus (who had a twin brother, great POD opportunity there via the classic good twin-evil twin trope).
 
Even accounting for that the Imperial family seemed to be unlucky, for example Marcus Aurelius had 13 kids, 9 of them died before age of 12 including all the sons with the exception of Commodus (who had a twin brother, great POD opportunity there via the classic good twin-evil twin trope).

His wife was a first cousin of his, so that might have had an effect. I don't know enough to comment.
 
The high mortality of the time was a significant factor, heirs were dying off left and right leaving no one to inherit, or worse the crazy. Though I find it odd that European noble families of the middle ages seemed to have less of an overall problem with this despite Roman medicine being significantly more advanced.

Heirs dying off left and right should mean adopt-a-successor or nephews, not civil war, assuming a system not based on who has the biggest army.
 
One thing that could help would be to avoid long-term postings for generals, preventing them from building up personal loyalty among their troops, and reducing the risk of "barrack-room emperors". I don't know how well it would work, but it might be worth a shot.
 
Top