AHC Fix the Roman Empire

[Tanc49]

You are a powerful Roman general during the 3rd Century Crisis, with a loyal enough army.
They have not proclaimed you emperor yet but you know they might be open to the suggestion.

In your heart of hearts, you know you have a mission, a destiny. From the ashes, the battlefields and the plague ridden corpses, you have to save the Roman Empire so it may last another eternity and shine its light on the world.

The sun rises, sending ripples on the calm river you're guarding. What will you do next?

 

[kholieken]

following example provided by Diocletian/Constantine/Justinian ?

- autocratic rule
- large bureaucracy to collect taxes
- religion as unifying ideology
- creation of large mobile central army / comitatus
- establish frontier army at Danube frontier and Armenian frontier using theme model
- strong navy
- capital at Byzantium area
- set semi-independence and hereditary rule for Britannia, Africa Numidia, Hispania, and Gallia. (as reward for general)
- maintain client states in Nubia, Arabia, and Armenia
- priority on diplomacy with Persia

 

[Tanc49]

following example provided by Diocletian/Constantine/Justinian ?

Or whatever comes through your mind, freestyle it! It's not for a book or a TL, just a bit of roleplay

- autocratic rule
- large bureaucracy to collect taxes
- religion as unifying ideology
- creation of large mobile central army / comitatus
- establish frontier army at Danube frontier and Armenian frontier using theme model

What do you do for the Rhine?

- strong navy
- capital at Byzantium area
- set semi-independence and hereditary rule for Britannia, Africa Numidia, Hispania, and Gallia. (as reward for general)

Roman or Barbarian general? Are you not worried about them becoming too powerful and invading the rest of the continent?
I also understand for Britannia and Numidia, but Gallia and Hispania are right next door, and very rich though

- maintain client states in Nubia, Arabia, and Armenia
- priority on diplomacy with Persia

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The key would have been to end slavery and there is no record of anyone attempting or even considering this.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

Honestly? Set up a DAMN BUDGET

I once read this one article about the Roman Finances were a mess, the Emperor for most of the Empire pretty much dealt with income as it came. There was no estimated tax income, nor properly calculated expenses. There was no such thing as a budget. How can I run an empire if I have no idea how much money I can spend?

Second: Set up a proper legitimacy system.

Namely, turn Rome into a deFacto Monarchy. That's what Rome needed. In practice, the Emperor is TotallyNotAKing plus Military Dictator, but that means there's no legitimacy system buyoing him. Would have to get the church onboard. If civil wars are fought between rival claimants of the same house rather than ambitious generals, we're already in a pretty good improvement.

Third: Make sure no single general can ever take over.

Descentralize Legion commands. Make it so that no Legions are large enough to overthrown the Emperor.

 

[Tairo]

• Set a budget
• Get rid of Praetorian Guard ASAP
• Take any and all measures necessary to bring Italia into a "self-sufficient" status
• Likewise for Hispania and Africa
• Attempt to tie the crisis to a "Mandate of Heaven"/ RoTTK Idea of "The Empire long divided must unite, long united must divide"

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Honestly? Set up a DAMN BUDGET

I once read this one article about the Roman Finances were a mess, the Emperor for most of the Empire pretty much dealt with income as it came. There was no estimated tax income, nor properly calculated expenses. There was no such thing as a budget. How can I run an empire if I have no idea how much money I can spend?

Second: Set up a proper legitimacy system.

Namely, turn Rome into a deFacto Monarchy. That's what Rome needed. In practice, the Emperor is TotallyNotAKing plus Military Dictator, but that means there's no legitimacy system buyoing him. Would have to get the church onboard. If civil wars are fought between rival claimants of the same house rather than ambitious generals, we're already in a pretty good improvement.

Third: Make sure no single general can ever take over.

Descentralize Legion commands. Make it so that no Legions are large enough to overthrown the Emperor.

Be careful. Byzantium did many of these points and it paid the price of securing monarchical stability in a weak army that was shamed by the Saljuqs at Manizkert and a hatred by much of the skilled people in the country toward Constantinople.

Also, could it not be beneficial, the notion of a rule by the sword in many cases? As I see it, there is benefits to a monarch who is justified by his skill, as opposed to justification in primordial or by custom. Many states implemented a custom whereby even the lowly could ascend to the throne if they had power and the gods favored them above the reigning monarch. If this is done, the country has a monarch who is a warrior and skilled in matters. Perhaps, there could be a set of criteria for which Rome may define rulers as defunct and have them killed and replaced. Most great states that stand the test of time, had this to some degree. Tyrants and imbeciles were murdered and replaced by one both more skilled and amiable to the ruling castes.

 

[Tanc49]

The budget is interesting especially as 8 heard (on History of Rome) that budgeting did exist for the military.

What about some form of electoral college, aka early HRE? All région commander get to elect an Emperor who rules until he dies.
That way, there are many positions of power, it's resilient to the emperor dying and all the mighty have a theoretical shot

 

[Albert Blake]

The budget is interesting especially as 8 heard (on History of Rome) that budgeting did exist for the military.

What about some form of electoral college, aka early HRE? All région commander get to elect an Emperor who rules until he dies.
That way, there are many positions of power, it's resilient to the emperor dying and all the mighty have a theoretical shot

And look at how the HRE turned out. I don’t think elective monarchies are ever good, simply based on the historical record.

 

[Tairo]

The budget is interesting especially as 8 heard (on History of Rome) that budgeting did exist for the military.

What about some form of electoral college, aka early HRE? All région commander get to elect an Emperor who rules until he dies.
That way, there are many positions of power, it's resilient to the emperor dying and all the mighty have a theoretical shot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didius_Julianus

Everyone having a shot at the Emperorship is arguably one of the major problems with the Empire.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

following example provided by Diocletian/Constantine/Justinian ?

- autocratic rule
- large bureaucracy to collect taxes
- religion as unifying ideology
- creation of large mobile central army / comitatus
- establish frontier army at Danube frontier and Armenian frontier using theme model
- strong navy
- capital at Byzantium area
- set semi-independence and hereditary rule for Britannia, Africa Numidia, Hispania, and Gallia. (as reward for general)
- maintain client states in Nubia, Arabia, and Armenia
- priority on diplomacy with Persia

Byzantium had most of these and was still quite limp wrist when facing only minor Islamic resistance and then defeated fairly easily by the Saljuq... Having a large bureaucracy to collect taxes means what exactly? Byzantium had this and all it created was resentment towards their rule and created a class of people who tended to vie for their own interests. Autocracy may be a positive in some cases, it depends, once more, Byzantium had this otl and its period of ascendancy lasted a relatively short period and the conquests were minor for what one might expect.

Religion as a unifying identity is positive, but which religion? Perhaps asserting a deification of the monarch or so forth? Strong navy is probably fine, but what would be its use to have a large standing navy paid by the state? The government can simply promote a merchant-marine that it does not need to maintain, similar to many successful ancient empires preceding Rome, such as Assyria, Achaemenids, etc...

It is difficult to maintain fair relations with the Sassanids and yet control Armenia. The Sassanids cannot simply allow Rome to protect the Arsacid successor state in Armenia. Rome if they are to protect Armenia, must make a decision:

1. Forget Armenia, let the Sassanids have it and remove the Arsacids, traditionally Roman enemies. This will allow a detente and fair relations with the Sassanids for a time.

2. Use Armenia to restore them to the throne and create a pseudo-Roman puppet in Cteshipon. In otl, this is partly what Emperor Maurice did, he utilized the Armenian nobility with his own armies to oust Bahram Mihran and restore Khosrow II upon the throne.

Ultimately, the second option may be the best for the long term prosperity of the east. This also could garner massive political fortune to the emperor who succeeds in this campaign.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

And look at how the HRE turned out. I don’t think elective monarchies are ever good, simply based on the historical record.

Why do you believe the Holy Roman Empire turned out poorly? Other than France, Venice and the Papacy, was the most consistent power in Europe for around 600+ years and was certainly preeminent. It was at least the second-highest title in the Catholic world, behind the Papacy and generally, was not bested by anyone aside for the Papacy and short periods wherein France held advantages on defensive wars. It was certainly more stable than the lauded Byzantine empire which holds many of these autocratic ideals that are well-liked.

 

[snerfuplz]

I'd be curious about what people think about settling the migrating people within the borders of the Empire.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I'd be curious about what people think about settling the migrating people within the borders of the Empire.

In my opinion, a fantastic idea. However, it would be best that the empire relocate them to more distant lands, if possible. The Middle Eastern regions would be most ideal, creating zones of buffer and soldiers to be used against the Sassanid empire and to repopulate areas that have declined in population due to wars and poor management.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Also, could it not be beneficial, the notion of a rule by the sword in many cases? As I see it, there is benefits to a monarch who is justified by his skill, as opposed to justification in primordial or by custom.

The problem is that lots of people are likely to think that they'd do a better job than the current emperor. This is especially the case when the empire's going through a wobbly period, making any crisis more likely to spiral out of control as happened in the 3rd century.

 

[Albert Blake]

Why do you believe the Holy Roman Empire turned out poorly? Other than France, Venice and the Papacy, was the most consistent power in Europe for around 600+ years and was certainly preeminent. It was at least the second-highest title in the Catholic world, behind the Papacy and generally, was not bested by anyone aside for the Papacy and short periods wherein France held advantages on defensive wars. It was certainly more stable than the lauded Byzantine empire which holds many of these autocratic ideals that are well-liked.

The HRE didn’t turn out poorly, it’s elective monarchy did. When you can get elected for 500 years in a row then it’s not really elective anymore. You might as well make it hereditary. Further more, despite the hegemony of the Hapsburgs, the HRE never properly united. It was a preeminent power from around its founding to the death of Frederick II in my opinion.

 

[Atamolos]

Descentralize Legion commands. Make it so that no Legions are large enough to overthrown the Emperor.

Wouldn't centralizing the legions be the way to go then? If the legions are decentralized (which they were IOTL) then any governor can reasonably expect a shot at the throne since his only direct superior was the emperor.

Get rid of Praetorian Guard ASAP

Why? The emperor needs physical protection. Julius Caesar made that example obvious, and no sane emperor would go without bodyguards. There are ways of marginalizing the praetorian guard in the succession without removing them completely.

1. Forget Armenia, let the Sassanids have it and remove the Arsacids, traditionally Roman enemies. This will allow a detente and fair relations with the Sassanids for a time.

This is political suicide for any emperor. Emperors were periodically killed for signing "shameful" peace treaties. Severus Alexander comes to mind, as does Jovian (if he was indeed assassinated), and even arguably Domitian. Any such concession would undermine all claims to legitimacy and any reasonably influential governor would be able to seize control on the promise of reclaiming what was lost to the Sassanids

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The HRE didn’t turn out poorly, it’s elective monarchy did. When you can get elected for 500 years in a row then it’s not really elective anymore. You might as well make it hereditary. Further more, despite the hegemony of the Hapsburgs, the HRE never properly united. It was a preeminent power from around its founding to the death of Frederick II in my opinion.

Would you not consider Sigismund of Luxembourg not the premier monarch in Europe? I mean, if the Empire prior to the Reformation was not the premier non-Papal state, then who would you vouch for this position?

-Byzantium: laughable...

-France: possibly, though I have my doubts. Much of their success came too, at the support and behest of the Papacy, especially Innocent III. Without the Albigensian Crusade, France would be in a much different position otl.

-England: I would not know how you could make this claim.

None else I can imagine, aside from the obvious answer of the Papacy.

EDIT: I might agree with you on the idea of electoral monarchy though.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Wouldn't centralizing the legions be the way to go then? If the legions are decentralized (which they were IOTL) then any governor can reasonably expect a shot at the throne since his only direct superior was the emperor.



Why? The emperor needs physical protection. Julius Caesar made that example obvious, and no sane emperor would go without bodyguards. There are ways of marginalizing the praetorian guard in the succession without removing them completely.



This is political suicide for any emperor. Emperors were periodically killed for signing "shameful" peace treaties. Severus Alexander comes to mind, as does Jovian (if he was indeed assassinated), and even arguably Domitian. Any such concession would undermine all claims to legitimacy and any reasonably influential governor would be able to seize control on the promise of reclaiming what was lost to the Sassanids

Sure, but the Empire cannot simply hold Armenia without understanding that it has to face the Sassanids in the field of battle. Thus, the only way to solve the issue outside or continual wars, is surrender or using Armenia to silence the Sassanid menace in its cradle, replacing it with the Arsacid monarchs once more.

 

[Albert Blake]

Would you not consider Sigismund of Luxembourg not the premier monarch in Europe? I mean, if the Empire prior to the Reformation was not the premier non-Papal state, then who would you vouch for this position?

-Byzantium: laughable...

-France: possibly, though I have my doubts. Much of their success came too, at the support and behest of the Papacy, especially Innocent III. Without the Albigensian Crusade, France would be in a much different position otl.

-England: I would not know how you could make this claim.

None else I can imagine, aside from the obvious answer of the Papacy.

EDIT: I might agree with you on the idea of electoral monarchy though.

Sigismund was incredible, don’t get me wrong, but he’s more of a light in the dark when it comes to powerful HRE emperors until the Hapsburgs. I would say France considering they caused a giant schism that lasted until the early 1400’s.