A Stronger System of Government for the Roman Empire

I've often wondered what kind of constitutional government would have made the Imperium Romanorum last longer than it actually did. It would have had to been introduced somewhat early on of course, but first, one would have to increased the authority of the Senate in conjunction with the Emperor. Maybe, even create several different senates in the major cities of different parts of the empire. The senates would have full domestic authority within their districts of control, such as public works, tax levying, and even command a sizable percentage of the Auxilia and a Legion each for defence, while the Emperor retains half of or three quarters of the Legions and a few elite Auxilia cohortes as a strategic reserve. The Emperor remains the overall head of state, military C-in-C and Chief Priest of the State Religion. But has no control whatsoever on the domestic and administrative policy of the individual Diocese of the empire, and needs the backing of the Diocese Senate before conducting a military campaign on their frontier. There perhaps should be an upper house of the Senate in Rome or some other better placed city, where representatives from the other senates meet to maintain cohesion and preserve the union between the seperate Diocese within the empire.

Any ideas?
 
There was a timeline on the board involving either Drusus or his brother surviving and reaching an accomodation with the Senate where the Emperor is supreme general and chief executive but the Senate has real powers too.

It's a sort of constitutional monarchy instead of despotism-pretending-to-be-republican.
 
There's still the whole checks and balances thing. The Emperors a lot of the time degenerated into murderous despots.

Perhaps the Emperor could check the civil-war-spawning tendencies of the Senators and the Senate could check the despotism of the Emperors?

(BTW, the Senators weren't ALWAYS starting civil wars)
 
I find the people belief in the positive role of the senate amusing.


Yep. The Senate was little more than an aristocratic good ol' boys club. It was the assemblies that maintained some level of popular representation. There's a reason Augustus got rid of those post-haste.
 
And just a side...if we assume the rome was split into 2 or 4...how will you ensure that there will be minimun amount of civil war, and prevent any part of the empire from falling?

Bascially avoid the sistuation where the empire has a unequal distribution of wealth.
 
Yep. The Senate was little more than an aristocratic good ol' boys club. It was the assemblies that maintained some level of popular representation. There's a reason Augustus got rid of those post-haste.

The Senate was the highest executive body during Rome's republican era, so it wasn't simply a good ol' boy's club. And while the people's assemblies existed to counteract the senate's authority, there we're still those that saw it as a stepping stone to social advancement. And there was more, I think, to Augustus' decision of getting rid of the popular assemblies and limiting the senate's authority than just their ineffectiveness to govern a vast territory. Augustus only trusted himself to rule the Empire competently, so it wasn't within his interest to exercise government alongside equals.

Admittedly, it would take completely re-ordering of , certain civic institutions, eventual universal suffrage and allowing the provinces to develop their respective economic capabilities to prevent them becoming a burden to the empire. Thats why I recommended the local senates, so they can organise their respective regional economies without the stresses of governing an empire. The responsibilities are evenly divided and mutually supporting.
 
Top