AHC: Byzantine Republic

[DominusNovus]

It occurs to me that, during the initial expansionary phase of Islam, the importance of Constantinople within the Byzantine Empire became proportionately greater, as more and more of the Empire's territory slipped away, with its major urban rivals falling under foreign rule (antioch, alexandria).

There were certainly many years where the Empire was Constantinople (not in the literal sense, of course). Consider that most of history considered city-states to be the best polities for Republican rule. Add into this the fact that the Byzantines had quite a few Emperors who, while not necessarily bad, weren't quite up to he challenges that faced them. For another added wrinkle, it seems that this period really saw the Byzantines seriously questioning their worldview, due to the obvious calamaties they faced.

With all of this going on, is it possible for the elite to decide that, hey, maybe going back to a Republic is a good idea?

Rhetorically, they could point out that the Empire did almost all of its expanding as a Republic, and all of its losses came as a monarchy (rhetoric allows you to play fast and loose with the facts). They could also allude to some Greek heritage of democratic rule, if they want to get really classical.

Strategically, if these elite take Constantinople, they could lose pretty mich thr rest of the Empire, and still be in a good position. Even if they can't hold onto much of the territory, they could be super-Venice.

Thoughts?

 

[Tjakari]

It occurs to me that, during the initial expansionary phase of Islam, the importance of Constantinople within the Byzantine Empire became proportionately greater, as more and more of the Empire's territory slipped away, with its major urban rivals falling under foreign rule (antioch, alexandria).

There were certainly many years where the Empire was Constantinople (not in the literal sense, of course). Consider that most of history considered city-states to be the best polities for Republican rule. Add into this the fact that the Byzantines had quite a few Emperors who, while not necessarily bad, weren't quite up to he challenges that faced them. For another added wrinkle, it seems that this period really saw the Byzantines seriously questioning their worldview, due to the obvious calamaties they faced.

With all of this going on, is it possible for the elite to decide that, hey, maybe going back to a Republic is a good idea?

Rhetorically, they could point out that the Empire did almost all of its expanding as a Republic, and all of its losses came as a monarchy (rhetoric allows you to play fast and loose with the facts). They could also allude to some Greek heritage of democratic rule, if they want to get really classical.

Strategically, if these elite take Constantinople, they could lose pretty mich thr rest of the Empire, and still be in a good position. Even if they can't hold onto much of the territory, they could be super-Venice.

Thoughts?

You're operating under the idea that the Romans saw the two eras in its government as separate; to any Roman the Republic was the Empire and the Empire the Republic, interchangeable and easily compatible names for the state to which they were a part. There's a lot more to this, but there are truly people better qualified to dissect this particular bit.

This sort of "nobles get together to screw the monarch" thing doesn't really work well in this instance, namely because there's no gain from abolishing the de-facto monarchy and potentially a shit ton of disadvantages. The Emperor is a knot, it's always been a knot, designed to tie together all the loose ends of the state into a single point wherein all gaps can be filled without conflict. The Emperor holds absolute power, it cannot be questioned and it's the most efficient way to get things done with the least amount of squabbling possible.

On top of the structural issues that such an abolition would bring, it's also infeasible simply because of the mindset of the time. Any one of those senators who band together against the Emperor will likely claim the empire for himself or place a family member on the throne. It's much easier, much safer, profitable, and all around just better to maintain the course instead of breaking it.

The Romans wouldn't have claimed Ancient Greece, the hellenes were a conquered people, their language lived on but they Roman through and through to callback to the times of Athens as a time to be replicated would have been an insult to more than most people. Rome didn't begin in Greece and whoever uses that as his tagline will surely be reminded.

Strategically, those elites will be much more screwed over in the event of total territorial loss, they pull their wealth from private property they pull their influence from that wealth their very place in society is a product of the state having that much land to go around. This is going under the assumption that this strange oligarchy persists, like I said earlier despotism is the baseline which all government falls to and coupling that with the ever dwindling sources for wealth amongst the oligarchs they'll be at each other's throats in hours; this, what you propose, is unstable and implausible.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Byzantium is in a way quite "predestined" to become a republic - just because they maintained the institution of the senate quite long. This senate is per definitionem an oligarchic organ opposed to the emperor. But, has history showed it, this body never (since the death of Caligula) tried to fully regain his ancient powers.

I think the best you could have is, with Byzantium surviving the Arabs and the Turks, a slow development into a noble monarchy like Poland, where the Senate represents the aristocracy, opposed to the weak, but necessary emperor.

You're operating under the idea that the Romans saw the two eras in its government as separate; to any Roman the Republic was the Empire and the Empire the Republic, interchangeable and easily compatible names for the state to which they were a part.

Oh, Tacitus as an example was quite aware of the difference between the res publica libera and the res publica restituta.

 

[darthfanta]

Byzantium is in a way quite "predestined" to become a republic - just because they maintained the institution of the senate quite long. This senate is per definitionem an oligarchic organ opposed to the emperor. But, has history showed it, this body never (since the death of Caligula) tried to fully regain his ancient powers.

I think the best you could have is, with Byzantium surviving the Arabs and the Turks, a slow development into a noble monarchy like Poland, where the Senate represents the aristocracy, opposed to the weak, but necessary emperor.



Oh, Tacitus as an example was quite aware of the difference between the res publica libera and the res publica restituta.

Difference though is that there's the army who is the absolute power in the empire.The voice of the army is louder than the senate in any circumstances possible,given it's size.Unlike Poland,the army doesn't automatically equate the aristocracy.If the Senate pulls anything the army doesn't like,chances are that the senators will all end up on a chopping block.The senate picking a weak emperor like Michael VII will probably end up having the army choose a soldier emperor and march on Constantinople.

Of course this is assuming this isn't the Palaelogian Empire.

 

[DominusNovus]

Difference though is that there's the army who is the absolute power in the empire.The voice of the army is louder than the senate in any circumstances possible,given it's size.Unlike Poland,the army doesn't automatically equate the aristocracy.If the Senate pulls anything the army doesn't like,chances are that the senators will all end up on a chopping block.The senate picking a weak emperor like Michael VII will probably end up having the army choose a soldier emperor and march on Constantinople.

Of course this is assuming this isn't the Palaelogian Empire.

Lets remember that, at least in theory, it was the army that elected the Consuls in the Republic. That assembly badly needed reform, of course, but the basic principle was still there.

 

[Tjakari]

Byzantium is in a way quite "predestined" to become a republic - just because they maintained the institution of the senate quite long. This senate is per definitionem an oligarchic organ opposed to the emperor. But, has history showed it, this body never (since the death of Caligula) tried to fully regain his ancient powers.

I think the best you could have is, with Byzantium surviving the Arabs and the Turks, a slow development into a noble monarchy like Poland, where the Senate represents the aristocracy, opposed to the weak, but necessary emperor.

The Senate in the East has no ancient powers to speak of, their general agreeability throughout history wasn't a fluke of circumstance; it was done on purpose. The Senate of Old Rome had deep roots, men could trace their lineage back to the times of Romulus and before, men who could claim blood older than the state. These were Patricians, top of the stack, nobility who were very painfully aware of how much power they had lost in the Empire.
Those that Constantine took to Nova Roma were however of lower rungs, they weren't old aristocracy, at least not in the sense of being rooted into the system the way they were in the West; Equites who were far more agreeable to the Emperor and even more willing to play a part in the government. The sort of thing the OP wants is more plausible in the West than the East.

And that goes for the times in the East where the empire was more or less still an extensive polity stretching from the Danube to Egypt, the farther down the line you go you get even more monarchic attitudes and the aristocracy was no different, and as I said earlier the more land you lose the less power the aristocracy can wield against the emperor. Alexios Komnenos during his wars against the Turks held off on more conquest so as to maintain his control over the nobility, the less land you have doesn't make the Emperor weaker in government it just makes him a bigger fish in an increasingly small pond. I'm not saying it's impossible to get rid of the Emperor, but the Romans wouldn't be the ones to do it and the nobles are likely to be choked out before they pull anything.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Strategically, those elites will be much more screwed over in the event of total territorial loss, they pull their wealth from private property they pull their influence from that wealth their very place in society is a product of the state having that much land to go around. This is going under the assumption that this strange oligarchy persists, like I said earlier despotism is the baseline which all government falls to and coupling that with the ever dwindling sources for wealth amongst the oligarchs they'll be at each other's throats in hours; this, what you propose, is unstable and implausible.

So, maybe you need a much longer evolution. Basically, a move by the aristocracy away from focusing on landed wealth, and more a merchant aristocracy. Admittedly, this requires a great change in their philosophy and mindset, but that's why it needs to be a gradual evolution.

 

[DominusNovus]

So, maybe you need a much longer evolution. Basically, a move by the aristocracy away from focusing on landed wealth, and more a merchant aristocracy. Admittedly, this requires a great change in their philosophy and mindset, but that's why it needs to be a gradual evolution.

And if they don't lose their territory, maintaining their landed estates?

Oh, and one phrase just entered my head: Thematic Electoral College.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Oh, and one phrase just entered my head: Thematic Electoral College.

Forget it. This is a federal institution of a federal country composed of sovereign states. A thema, like a province, is a adminstrative unit set up by the central government.

And if you look at the development of states becoming a republic after uniting (e.g. France, Turkey, People's republic of China) they tend to firstly absolish old feudal privileges and federal elements in their constitution.

Also, why should the Byzantine empire with a homogeneous Greek and christian population and a quite small territory (modern Turkey + Greece) adopt a federal consitution? Neiter Greece nor Turkey did it in the past - a bigger empire could maybe chose some decentralized government (like the classic Roman empire with autonomous civitates could evolve into a federal republic/monarchy), but then, it would likely be a provincial electoral college...

 

[SlyDessertFox]

And if they don't lose their territory, maintaining their landed estates?

Then it's probably not doable. You have to turn the Byzantine Empire into some kind of mercantile oriented state.

 

[DominusNovus]

Forget it. This is a federal institution of a federal country composed of sovereign states. A thema, like a province, is a adminstrative unit set up by the central government.

And if you look at the development of states becoming a republic after uniting (e.g. France, Turkey, People's republic of China) they tend to firstly absolish old feudal privileges and federal elements in their constitution.

Theres a difference between federalism and hacing an electoral college. As for the idea tthat states tend to abolish their feudal structures, lets remember that the French Revolution casts a long shadow.

So, if the original Roman Republic could base its voting on military organization, what challenges would he Byzantines face?

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Theres a difference between federalism and hacing an electoral college. As for the idea tthat states tend to abolish their feudal structures, lets remember that the French Revolution casts a long shadow.

So, if the original Roman Republic could base its voting on military organization, what challenges would he Byzantines face?

Ah, now I understand. A theme as a military unit (like centuries if the Roman assembly, even if they weren't actually identic with the centuriae of the army). So, basically, the soldiers beeing member of one theme (and living on the territoriy of this theme) elect a person representing them in Constantinople, where these elected magistrates elect the emperor/the hypathi?

 

[DominusNovus]

More or less.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

More or less.

I see: you have a bunch of good ideas. Why do you don't write a TL about exactly this premise? The Byzantine empire as a republic. A true Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn.

 

[DominusNovus]

It is quite tempting. In particular because the period I'm thinking of is known as the Twenty Years Anarchy, after all. Not exactly a point when faith in the institutions of the Empire was at an all time high. Hell, all a fledgling Byzantine Republic would really need for legitimacy is to be in charge when fighting off the Arab siege of the city. Look at how far that carried Leo. A few details to consider:

- The role of the Church, in particular, both the Patriarch and, presuming any effort is made to hold onto Rome, the Pope. I could see the Patriarchs liking the arrangement, since an elected leader might not have as much power over the Patriarch as an Emperor might.
- Life terms, like Venetian Doges, or set terms, like Roman Consuls?
- Title for the chief executive? Hypatos? Anthyptos? Proedros?
- Singular executive or dual?
- Other elected offices?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Life term like the doge seems the most realistic. It allows a de facto emperor basically, so is less of a change from the current system.

The only problem with that though is, unlike with the Venetians, the Byzantines have a powerful army that makes or breaks emperors/doges/consuls.

 

[darthfanta]

Ah, now I understand. A theme as a military unit (like centuries if the Roman assembly, even if they weren't actually identic with the centuriae of the army). So, basically, the soldiers beeing member of one theme (and living on the territoriy of this theme) elect a person representing them in Constantinople, where these elected magistrates elect the emperor/the hypathi?

Looks like something from Starship Troopers.

 

[DominusNovus]

Life term like the doge seems the most realistic. It allows a de facto emperor basically, so is less of a change from the current system.

The only problem with that though is, unlike with the Venetians, the Byzantines have a powerful army that makes or breaks emperors/doges/consuls.

My concern is pretty much that, with the added wrinkle of having a life term would make it easier for the elected leader to make the position hereditary again.

Plus, there's the 'the army might want to overthrow him' angle. I think set terms might make everyone a little bit more agreeable with each other.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Looks like something from Starship Troopers.

? I don't understand.

 

[DominusNovus]

Just a rough draft for the beginning of such a Republic:

The Birth of the Byzantine Republic
In modern nomenclature, the Second Roman Republic is more commonly referred to as the Byzantine Republic, simply to help distinguish it from its classical predecessor. However, to any Latin speaker around during its birth, they would have still called it the Res Publica Romana, or, more informally, simply the Imperium Romanum, as it had been for centuries. Those Greeks in the Republic would have called it the Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn, with the more blatantly monarchical Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn falling out of favor relatively quickly upon the establishment of the Republic. Regardless, modern ears have become accustomed to 'Byzantine Republic,' as it neatly defines both the center of power and the style of government.

It was born in the confusing days of the collapse of the Heraclian Dynasty that had attempted to hold back the growing tide of Islam under the Caliphs. Known also as the Twenty Years' Anarchy, this period saw the culmination of instability in the Roman Empire as all aspects of society came under scrutiny and skepticism. Faith in everything in their world was virtually non-existant. The government, the church, the people themselves. They all felt lost and forsaken. And who could blame them? Within the span of less than a century, the Empire had gone from resoundingly defeating their most ancient of foes and holding steady onto the bulk of the Mediterranean to now just an sliver of their former territory in Anatolia, with isolated outposts strung out across the sea.

The last Emperor, born Konan, but more well-known as Leo III, Leo the Isaurian, or Leo the Last, was an ambitious man who may well have been able to turn the tide for the Empire and its institutions, but his destiny was cut short during the brutal Second Arab Siege of Constantinople in AD 717-718. He had come to power just ahead of the invading army and was immediately faced with the prospect of defending Constantinople, the lynchpin of the entire Empire. All knew that, if it fell, the entity known as Rome would be entirely extinguished.

It is at this point that it is important to stress the questionable reliability of sources for the period. The historiography of the birth of the Republic is heavily hagiographic, in the most literal of senses, as several men and women who went on to be canonized were key players. That said, a few details are consistently attested to in sources close enough to events to be confidently held to be accurate enough.

The first was that Leo died during the early phases of the siege. The circumstances of his death are less certain. The few pro-Imperial writers claimed it was in battle in the defense of the city. Later, more rabidly anti-Imperial writers claim that he was a debauched hedonist who raped several noble women and offered to whore out others to the invaders. This latter account is almost certainly not even remotely accurate, and more likely a fabrication entirely designed to parallel the story of Lucretia and the founding of the original Roman Republic.

A third account is that Leo's own cleverness was his undoing. He had been playing a dangerous diplomatic game with the enemy commander, Maslama, constantly sending overtures to the Arabs to dangle the possibility of Roman submission. This may have been simply subterfuge designed to disrupt and delay enemy operations. However, it seems to have not been so positively received by the population of the city when his machinations became widely known. Many thought he was truly intent on surrender. Given that his theological sympathies may have been inclined toward a contemporary heresy known as Iconoclasm, which was considered inspired by the Islamic prohibition on graven images, this accusation had considerable weight.

And so, while defending his city against Arab invaders, the last Roman Emperor and his allies seem to have been violently attacked by his people and murdered. Later writers would contend that this was part of an organized plan to restore power to the people. It is more likely that the event, presuming it happened, was totally unorganized, unplanned, and none had any plan for the aftermath. Given that the first rule of any coup was to have a candidate waiting in the wings, it is unsurprising that, lacking this, there was no agreement on who should take the reigns of state as the next Emperor.

The infighting was forestalled by a power-sharing agreement among the political elite, the military commanders, and the clergy. This was likely not intended to be a permanent solution, but simply was designed to keep the defense of the city going in the face of extinction. As the city held off every attempt by the Arabs to conquer them, the people of Constantinople gained further faith in the new arrangement. As the diplomatic overtures towards the Bulgarians bore fruit and the barbarians aided the beleaguered city, this arrangement gained legitimacy. And when the siege was finally lifted and the Arabs devastated, the political arrangement, which was already becoming known as a new Republic, was totally embraced. It was the dawn of a new era, even if none knew quite how, exactly, it was going to be run.