AH challenge: A constitution for Rome

Skokie

Banned
That would deal with the problem of accession and other things.

Let's say sometime between 150–175 CE.

And...Go!
 
That would deal with the problem of accession and other things.

Let's say sometime between 150–175 CE.

And...Go!
??? Why? How? A law that states how Emperors are chosen is possible - although the next successful general who takes the purple illegally will simply have it eliminated.

But a constitution? !?! A law that would constrain the powers of the autocrat (successfully)? Any such law, let alone a constitution.

I WAS going to say totally improbable, but I don't see anyway its less than ASB at the moment.


Unless someone managed to reinstitute a reformed Republic - with teeth. But I don't see how to do that, either.
 
Seeing as how the Enlightenment hasn't happened and any concept of a Constitution doesn't even exist as they idea of a Contract between rulers and people doesn't exist. I like the idea but without the Enlightenment it is a step not reachable particularly at the time you say. You need a Divine Right to become susceptible to criticism first and at this point there just isn't an intellectual base for this. At the time you chose 150-175 CE the Romans still have one more dynasty of competent leaders coming before the end.
 

Skokie

Banned
I thought the word constitution was a bit broader than the modern connotation of written, contractual constitutions. I've read numerous books that referred to "the unwritten Roman constitution."

Anyway, point is, how can we get a more stable empire through internal reform of the imperial system (if we don't like the word constitution)?

I chose this period because 'twas the good old days of the empire, when, as luck would have it, there were competent emperors.
 
The idea of a constitution certainly existed!

The notion of compiling a codified body of laws was around at least since 7th century BC. Laws of Draco and Solon in Athens (which we do not have), laws of Gortyn (which we do have as inscription). Rome herself had the Twelve Tables (whose content is unknown but whose existence is abundantly attested).

Incidentally, it was in 2nd century AD that Twelve Tables were formally repealed.

Now, as for constitution - a text which purports to give a comprehensive overview of the composition and functions of the higher organs of government, but omits private law - several existed. For example, we have constitution of Erythrai (5th century BC) and constitution of Cyrene (3rd century BC).

Athens had a number of constitutional reforms after the Laws of Solon. But what is not clear is whether the laws of Solon were formally repealed and replaces by any single document. Rather it seems that the reforms of Cleisthenes and Ephialtes were separate acts that did not purport to be a single codified constitution, but leave previous laws in force insofar as not superseded.

Now, Rome had constitutional reforms. Laws of Licinius and Sextus, Lex Hortensia, reforms of Gracchi and of Sulla, and of Pompey and Crassus, laws of Caesar and Augustus.

But it seems that there was no consolidated text purporting to be the constitution of Rome, and issuing such may have been deliberately avoided by the reformers.

Consolidated constitutions were not generally unacceptable to Romans. There are foundation and reform charters of Roman colonies, such as Lex Ursonensis (we have 4 out of 9 tables).

Roughly who, in 2nd century, might undertake to issue a consolidated Constitution of Roman Empire?
 
Top