AHC: Byzantine Republic

...the bible actually indicated that God DID NOT want a monarchy.

That's not what the Bible says. See Daniel 2:21

He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;

Also, see Romans 13:1-9

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...

On the basis of these texts, I would say one who abolishes God's chosen representative has committed an act of blasphemy against the Lord himself.
 
That's not what the Bible says. See Romans 13:1-9

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...
Having a republic in no way contradicts what's said in the above verse.Someone smart could have interpreted the whole republic business as people guided by God to elect a ruler(much like how the Cardinals supposedly elect the pope).Read the old testament--mainly the section about the appointment of the first king.
1 Samuel 8 - Israel Demands a King


But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day; with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods; so they are doing to you also."


 
Probably the closest you would get would be a situation like in a modern constitutional monarchy, where the government is in practice run as a republic but where the Emperor is still kept around for religious/ceremonial reasons. Maybe have it so that during the period of anarchy the local regions start to take defence into their own hands more, leading the Empire to become more of a quasi-feudal entity. The Emperor recognises that trying to bring the local leaders to heel would weaken the Empire, perhaps irreparably, and besides, they have been doing rather well in defending Byzantium's borders. Accordingly he tries to ensure their loyalty by offering concessions, agreeing to consult with them more and give them a greater role in running the Empire. Over the course of however many generations, more and more concessions are made, until the Empire is de facto run by a council of magnates, with the Emperor himself as just a figurehead. Find a way to have the Imperial position be filled by election (which was theoretically the case anyway), and you'd essentially have a republican country whose head of state just happens to be called Emperor.
 
Probably the closest you would get would be a situation like in a modern constitutional monarchy, where the government is in practice run as a republic but where the Emperor is still kept around for religious/ceremonial reasons. Maybe have it so that during the period of anarchy the local regions start to take defence into their own hands more, leading the Empire to become more of a quasi-feudal entity. The Emperor recognises that trying to bring the local leaders to heel would weaken the Empire, perhaps irreparably, and besides, they have been doing rather well in defending Byzantium's borders. Accordingly he tries to ensure their loyalty by offering concessions, agreeing to consult with them more and give them a greater role in running the Empire. Over the course of however many generations, more and more concessions are made, until the Empire is de facto run by a council of magnates, with the Emperor himself as just a figurehead. Find a way to have the Imperial position be filled by election (which was theoretically the case anyway), and you'd essentially have a republican country whose head of state just happens to be called Emperor.

This is a good suggestion, and seems the best answer.

It reminds me of the situation in feudal Japan, where the emperor had become a figurehead and real power rested in the hands of the Shogun. I agree with the post above.
 
Alternatively, you could have the Empire go in a really theocratic direction and declare Christ to be their Emperor, with the actual ruler just being a regent on His behalf.
 
I'm unsure what the problem is if this "republic" is really an elected monarchy.

Well strictly speaking an elected monarchy is not a Republic.

For example, the UK (that's England, for the benefit of any Americans present ;) ) is not a Republic, it's a constitutional monarchy with executive power delegated to a democratically elected parliament.
 
Some people call it a "Crowned Republic" though.

Actually we do have some people here who want a true Republic, which involves abolishing the monarchy. But they are a tiny minority and we don't hear much about it in the mainstream press.

In Australia, there was a referendum about it a few years back, where they debated whether they should abolish the monarchy and become a Republic. But in the end the people voted to keep the Queen.
 
On the contrary, they were forced to accept his political authority. Look at what happened to Pope Martin I - he was arrested by imperial troops and brought to Constantinople in chains.

Specifically, he was hurried out of Rome and conveyed first to Naxos, Greece, and subsequently to Constantinople, where he arrived on 17 September 653. After suffering an exhausting imprisonment and many alleged public indignities, he was ultimately banished to Chersonesus (present day Crimea region), where he arrived on 15 May 655 and died on 16 September of that year.

The western church did indeed have to accept the authority of the emperor in religious matters at this time.

They submitted to his authority undre threat of force, yes. But once the Byzantines were evicted from Itsly, the only theological break you saw was over iconoclasm. There was no theological basis to their submission, though. The western Church long had a tradition of independence from he Imperial government going back to Ambrose. Thid would not be so thorny an issue to be outright heresy.

And even when the Popes were under the thumb of the Emperor in Constantinople, they were still constantly defying him.
 
On all this topic of monarchy, there's one monarch right next door that we haven't really discussed: The Bulgar Khan. What might they do in the face of an elected government in Constantinople? Would they consider such a government weaker than a monarchy?

Back an Imperial candidate, as they had during much of the recent civil wars?

Try to claim the city and Imperial title themselves, now that the Arabs are gone? Perhaps with a healthy dose of Romanizing/Hellenizing?

Maintain the Constantinople government as a satellite?
 
On all this topic of monarchy, there's one monarch right next door that we haven't really discussed: The Bulgar Khan. What might they do in the face of an elected government in Constantinople? Would they consider such a government weaker than a monarchy?

Back an Imperial candidate, as they had during much of the recent civil wars?

Try to claim the city and Imperial title themselves, now that the Arabs are gone? Perhaps with a healthy dose of Romanizing/Hellenizing?

Maintain the Constantinople government as a satellite?

Venice did not make republicanism popular in Italy, did it?
 
One thing I've been thinking about in this general topic has been the role of women. Historically, the Byzantine period saw its fair share of powerful women come to the fore through dynastic means, and a similar share of women attempt to do so. Should the Empire revert to regular elections, they will likely be shut out of the process, won't they? To be sure, there will be plenty of women whose advice is valued by their elected husbands, but if legitimacy rests entirely on electoral success rather than blood, then the only way for them to wield power on their own would be to be elected, something there's almost no chance of such a society even considering.

Anyone have any good info on the status of women in Medieval Italian Republics, compared to their feudal counterparts?
 
Top