AHC: Reform the Roman Empire's Defensive Strategy

[Atamolos]

I've been reading Edward Luttwak's, "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire," and it's gotten me thinking about possible ways to reform the Roman army during the early empire in ways that will mitigate the perennial civil wars that plagued the empire for its entire existence. It's difficult to do without an insane degree of historical hindsight, which obviously any characters in an ATL will not have, so how can the leaders of the Roman Empire plausibly establish institutions that will mitigate either the causes or effects of the civil wars? Bonus points if it's a solution that wasn't eventually settled on IOTL.

To reiterate, the goals are:
--fewer civil wars
--mitigation of frontier weaknesses when civil wars do eventually break out
--a more secure, legitimate central government
--no 3rd century crisis

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Have Nero not be such a shitty leader. Many Senators felt loyal to Augustus's bloodline until he died. Nero was popular among the farmers (I'd say at least 3/4 liked him), the masses of Rome proper, and Gaul, but he alienated the military and IIRC debased the currency. Galba's ascension gave precedent for a general replacing a shitty leader. Otho gave precedent for a general who wasn't shitty himself replacing a shitty leader. Vespasian gave precedent for a general who wasn't shitty replacing a shitty leader, and one who started a dynasty.

If Nero is mostly popular but with some dissenters, this is better. I'd say if we have 3 usurpers in 3-4 generations and all fail to get to Rome and all die horribly, combined wit the failed Pisonian conspiracy we might have cemented Imperial rule.

 

[Atamolos]

Have Nero not be such a shitty leader. Many Senators felt loyal to Augustus's bloodline until he died. Nero was popular among the farmers (I'd say at least 3/4 liked him), the masses of Rome proper, and Gaul, but he alienated the military and IIRC debased the currency. Galba's ascension gave precedent for a general replacing a shitty leader. Otho gave precedent for a general who wasn't shitty himself replacing a shitty leader. Vespasian gave precedent for a general who wasn't shitty replacing a shitty leader, and one who started a dynasty.

If Nero is mostly popular but with some dissenters, this is better. I'd say if we have 3 usurpers in 3-4 generations and all fail to get to Rome and all die horribly, combined wit the failed Pisonian conspiracy we might have cemented Imperial rule.

I have my doubts. I conceived this thread to try and divine a solution to the Roman Empire's defenses in the abstract, rather than with respect to specific personalities, since I'm skeptical about the importance of individual leadership in the aggregate. Rather, I'm looking for a structural means to stabilize the imperial frontiers. Not that civil wars must be avoided entirely, merely that when they happen, they tend to leave the frontiers a tad exposed (this can be seen as early as the Batavian revolt following the Year of Four Emperors). But what *institutional* changes can come about that might make rallying large armies against the emperor more difficult to accomplish, but when they do happen, ensure that they are less bloody and don't expose the frontiers too much. I'm honestly at a loss. My first instinct is to establish a more coherent command structure in the legions (i.e. a general staff, division of responsibilities, greater centralization, etc), since this is what happened during the late empire where civil wars were less blatantly destructive, but I'm unsure whether or not this is an adequate measure

EDIT: I wouldn't have posted this when I did if I had known that a thousand other ancient Rome threads would also pop up at the same time

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I've been reading Edward Luttwak's, "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire," and it's gotten me thinking about possible ways to reform the Roman army during the early empire in ways that will mitigate the perennial civil wars that plagued the empire for its entire existence. It's difficult to do without an insane degree of historical hindsight, which obviously any characters in an ATL will not have, so how can the leaders of the Roman Empire plausibly establish institutions that will mitigate either the causes or effects of the civil wars? Bonus points if it's a solution that wasn't eventually settled on IOTL.

To reiterate, the goals are:
--fewer civil wars
--mitigation of frontier weaknesses when civil wars do eventually break out
--a more secure, legitimate central government
--no 3rd century crisis

Keep major commands in the hands of senatorial amateurs rather than professional equestrians. As long as senators were in command, their career structure ensured that they spent considerable amounts of time back in Rome, where the emperor could monitor them for disloyalty and cultivate good relations with them. When commands instead started going to professional officers who spent their entire careers in the provinces, this became much more difficult.

Related: regularly rotate legions around the various frontiers to prevent the main army groups becoming too cliquish.

 

[Atamolos]

Related: regularly rotate legions around the various frontiers to prevent the main army groups becoming too cliquish.

I like this idea, there's just a few issues.

1. This would slow the Romanization of the frontier provinces. Romanization was critical for pacifying the frontiers, and this relied heavily on the development of large cities around legionary garrisons. However, if they're constantly moving, the legions would have little reason to settle down and start families on the frontiers, which would hurt efforts to "civilize" Germania, Illyria, etc.

2. It would be very logistically expensive. Moving legions around like that takes time and money. Gaul to Moesia is a four month march, and Moesia to Syria is another two to three. To accommodate the weakness this would create, the military would have to nearly double in size with an uncertain outcome.

Maybe a middle ground? Rotating officers between the provinces? There was already some of this going on IOTL (most praetorian guardsmen were former centurions from the provinces), but I am curious as to what the effects might be

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Related: regularly rotate legions around the various frontiers to prevent the main army groups becoming too cliquish.

There is a problem with that. You know how Brittaia had Hadrians Wall (in Neros time there were just seven little forts that would one day be connected) but rather than an impenetrable barriers it was more of a series of connected gates for tariffs to be collected. It also had the benefit of stopping raiders which came down now and then.

Anyways, so a few observers during Vespasian's time noted that 3,000 men brought in from other regions (rotation was only done whenever there was an immediate threat or when the new commander asks for some of his old subordinates to follow to his new post) were slightly less effectively than 1,000 locally raised men. It took about three years for the incomers to become fully effective. Is that Autumn rain in Londinium and the legion bases really that bad for morale?

It's not a case of green troops vs crack veterans. Green troops did the worse (even locally raised), but veterans of the area tended to fare better than new reinforcements. After Boudica's revolt, the new governor found that his three new legions took some time to become fully effective, especially with forest fighting in the mop-up operations. My guess is that in the off-hours, legionaries mingle with the locals and learn terrain and geography, something that rotated ones can't do. But why would this be specific to Britannia? Woun't this apply to Italia? How about Gaul and Germania and the Rhine regions. And if it applies to all regions, doesn't that mean rotation simply mean the legions become less effective against boarder raids?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

conceived this thread to try and divine a solution to the Roman Empire's defenses in the abstract, rather than with respect to specific personalities, since I'm skeptical about the importance of individual leadership in the aggregate.

Quite, but the whole point of making a stabler Nero is that it heads off (or would help to) the 'any General can revolt and become Emperor'.which so destabilized the Empire. This IS (the start of) an institutional fix.

Hereditary emperors are probably going to be worse on average than successful generals (who at least have competence in a couple of areas), but
1) it increases stability and
2) lets the Emperor trust his generals to do their job.
This latter is huge, imo. OTL, emperors HAD to distrust their generals, and if one got too good, had to remove him. What's worse, is that perfectly loyal generals would sometimes have their men acclaim them Emperor - at which point said general had to commit suicide (either by his own hand or by returning to Rome), or make a try for the throne.

---
OT3H, Sulla, Marius and Caesar all set really bad examples, so it's might be harder to stop than 'make Nero a nice car guy'.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I like this idea, there's just a few issues. (snip)

There is a problem with that. (snip)

Yeah, I'm aware that my proposed solutions would probably reduce the effectiveness of the army to a degree, but I think that trade-off is inevitable: the conditions necessary to have an efficient army also make it easier for a disloyal general to turn that efficient army against you. So it becomes a question of whether or not the trade-off is worth it. Personally I'm of the opinion that civil wars were ultimately more damaging to the Empire than external invasions were, so I think that in the long run the policies I suggested would prolong the Empire's existence, although of course I could well be wrong.