3 Roman emperors

Instead of spliting the Roman empire into 3, what if the empire was split between 3 emperors, 2 junior emperors ruling the eastern and western half, with one supreme Roman emperor dictating their foreign policy and ruling over Rome and Italy.

Elections will be held and allow the junior emperors to get elected for the position of the supreme emperor.

An electoral college vote is held into place, ensuring the votes in the eastern and western half have the same amount of vote. Thus ensuring one needs to win over the electoral vote in Italy and Rome.

What happens next?
 
Instead of spliting the Roman empire into 3, what if the empire was split between 3 emperors, 2 junior emperors ruling the eastern and western half, with one supreme Roman emperor dictating their foreign policy and ruling over Rome and Italy.

Elections will be held and allow the junior emperors to get elected for the position of the supreme emperor.

An electoral college vote is held into place, ensuring the votes in the eastern and western half have the same amount of vote. Thus ensuring one needs to win over the electoral vote in Italy and Rome.

What happens next?
Civil war.
 
Who does the electing? A more likely scenario is that Rome experiences civil war after civil war as in our time line; the junior emperors try to over throw the senior emperor and then fight each other for power.

Really the only way to save Rome was before Augustus. Once the Julio-Claudians had established the principate, its only a matter of time before the whole thing collapses.

So there are two possible solutions:

1. Save the republic, perhaps with an elective dictator (but with strictly enforced term limits).

2. Establish a sole legitimate method of imperial succession. The problem with this is that Rome is likely to have even more bad emperors that way.

-
Bill
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Instead of spliting the Roman empire into 3, what if the empire was split between 3 emperors, 2 junior emperors ruling the eastern and western half, with one supreme Roman emperor dictating their foreign policy and ruling over Rome and Italy.

Elections will be held and allow the junior emperors to get elected for the position of the supreme emperor.

An electoral college vote is held into place, ensuring the votes in the eastern and western half have the same amount of vote. Thus ensuring one needs to win over the electoral vote in Italy and Rome.

What happens next?

Work exactly one generation when the people who created the system are alive, then all hell will break lose when their successors all tries to become the sole emperor.
 
Instead of spliting the Roman empire into 3,

Note that Roman empire has never ben splited into 2 or 3 parts. Don't be mistaken by the number of emperors - Empire has always been united.

with one supreme Roman emperor dictating their foreign policy and ruling over Rome and Italy.,
It means that supreme emperor is noone. Rome had 3 main army groups - Gallia, Danube and Syrya. So, so two junior emperors would asked the chief - Who are fucking you? - and smashed him away.
 
Note that Roman empire has never ben splited into 2 or 3 parts. Don't be mistaken by the number of emperors - Empire has always been united.


It means that supreme emperor is noone. Rome had 3 main army groups - Gallia, Danube and Syrya. So, so two junior emperors would asked the chief - Who are fucking you? - and smashed him away.
The Roman Empire has been split into several parts in the past: East and west, Gallic/Palmyrene empires, tetrarchy...

And speaking of the tetrarchy, that's proof enough that this kind of system wouldn't work. I disagree that that the principate was doomed to failure, or even that Rome could be saved only during the republic: the principate could and did survive if a strong ruler came to power, as it happened with, among others, Augustus, Trajan, Constantine... it was the bad emperors, like Caligula for example, that did the empire in (although the system did get to a point where it was unsustainable, but that was later on).

And the Roman Republic was doomed to failure, it was a system created for a city state ruling over a three continent spanning empire.
 
The Roman Empire has been split into several parts in the past: East and west, Gallic/Palmyrene empires,

Wrong. So called Gallic and Palmyrene emires was not Roman states. According to official point of view they were usual rebels.

tetrarchy
Tetrarchy is not 4 different empires. Tetrarchy is 1 empire rulled by 4 emperors. Fill the difference.

And speaking of the tetrarchy, that's proof enough that this kind of system wouldn't work

Actually, experience of the $-th century shows that 4 or 2 emperors are better than 1. Cause foreign situation is absolutely different thatn in 1st century. In time of August barbarians did not attack all lenght of the border.
If you mean civil wars between tetrarchs - it is Diocletian mistake - he had to appoint emperors for life, not for particular period of time.
 
Top