AHC: Republican One-Man Rule in Rome

I think one of the main appeals of provincialization was stability. When you consider that the first province was Sicily, an important food source for Rome, and you also consider that Sicily had been anything but stable prior to becoming a province, it makes quite a bit of sense to want to exert direct control over such a territory.
 
I think one of the main appeals of provincialization was stability. When you consider that the first province was Sicily, an important food source for Rome, and you also consider that Sicily had been anything but stable prior to becoming a province, it makes quite a bit of sense to want to exert direct control over such a territory.

This indeed a valid point.

The King of Syracuse, had never ruled the entire island. The romans could have changed this, when implementing a client state, but they had to expect trouble. However, with a legion onsite, supporting the new client king, I don't see unsolvable issues.

Making them socii would perhaps have been a bigger issue. Because you had multiple concurring tribes on the island. But also this issue was not new. The romans faced similar situations in some italian regions.

Direct control (buerocratic approach, model 2 above) would have been possible with less local issues. As was the implementation of a pro-magistrate (model 1 above). But, as mentioned above, the pro-magistrate was the most lean, most pragmatic, cheapest and easiest solution. No wonder these always pragmatic (and often mean) roman aristocracy went his way. Not considering, that they implement a kind of roman kings. They obviously thought, that they could control them. And they have been fully wrong. Because longterm, the pro-magistrate led to chaos not stability.
 
Last edited:
This indeed a valid point.

The King of Syracuse, had never ruled the entire island. The romans could have changed this, when implementing a client state, but they had to expect trouble. However, with a legion onsite, supporting the new client king, I don't see unsolvable issues.

Making them socii would perhaps have been a bigger issue. Because you had multiple concurring tribes on the island. But also this issue was not new. The romans faced similar situations in some italian regions.

Direct control (buerocratic approach, model 2 above) would have been possible with less local issues. As was the implementation of a pro-magistrate (model 1 above). But, as mentioned above, the pro-magistrate was the most lean, most pragmatic, cheapest and easiest solution. No wonder these always pragmatic (and often mean) roman aristocracy went his way. Not considering, that they implement a kind of roman kings. They obviously thought, that they could control them. And they have been fully wrong. Because longterm, the pro-magistrate led to chaos not stability.

It is indeed somehwat remarkable that they never considered (AFAIK) collegial provincial magistratures. According to Ziolkowski again (who appears pretty sensible on the issue, although I am sure there are differences) this could be explained by the origin of the pro-magistratures in military commands(imperium). In his view, which I find basically correct, the pro-magistrate largely evolved the commanding officer of the occupation army in a foreign land; a post which by its nature had no room for collegiality, unlike civilian or mixed magistratures. Of course, consulship was collegial, had imperium and was for the most part a military command post, but it was collegial, among other things, precisely because Rome very often need more than one person with imperium at the same time: one in Rome and one in the field, or both in the field in separate theaters. AFAIK, both consuls at the same place, while not unheard of (Cannae for instance) was uncommon.
 
It is indeed somehwat remarkable that they never considered (AFAIK) collegial provincial magistratures.

...

because Rome very often need more than one person with imperium at the same time: one in Rome and one in the field, ...

So 2 pro-magistrates would have been an option: 1 civil administrator and 1 military commander. Like it often was in Rome. Whenever possible one consul remained in Rome. This would have solved a lot of issues and would have improved the opportunities of the senate to control the province governors.

Theoretically the quaestor of the province, who was not reporting to the pro-praetor officially, was supposed to somewhat control the pro-praetor. But due to the praetors higher auctoritas, this did just seldomly happen. Furthermore most quaestors were friends or clients of the praetor.

I guess the main reason was: too many pro-magistrates needed! This leads automatically to more magistrates in Rome itself, who could become pro-magistrate. And at least the number of senators of praetorian rank in the senate would increase. That happened anyways later, but in these early times, the romans tried to avoid it.
 
So 2 pro-magistrates would have been an option: 1 civil administrator and 1 military commander.

It would be a vast improvement in terms of both overall stability and better management of the provinces. Of course, it required the Romans to bother about actually administering the provinces, as opposed to just looting them.
It was rare that they even considered that before the first century BCE.
AFAIK, they did not feel that provinces (whose very name, after all, means more or less "conquered land") needed such a thing as a civil administration.
Furthermore, there was no role model for that. A consul or praetor in Italy had both civilian and military authority. The model they had included the possibility of, say, two magistrates with equal powers in every province (perhaps this starts in Spain; rather than dividing it into two provinces, they create one big-ass one with two proconsuls), but separating a military and civil sphere in a collegial magistrature was not done in Republican Rome.

However, this does not help with the OP.
 
It would be a vast improvement in terms of both overall stability and better management of the provinces.

I am not that confident. Look at Varro, the governor of Sicilia, which is the best documented case, because Cicero was the lawyer of the sicilian cities. I am afraid, that very often not that much would change. Varro had a quaestor and legates. All nominated by the senate. The quaestor even with an independent mandate. Nevertheless, they all worked together harmoniously in order to exploit the province. Even if the senate appoints 2 colleagues from 2 opposing factions intentionally, the chances are high, that they work together, if it comes to exploitation. The senate knew, that the provinces are exploited, but did not care. Most impeachments in Rome failed, due to the aristocratic jury.

Collegial provincial magistratures would help. No doubt about that. But it is just a first step and one of many needed measures. Exploitation did not stop until the princeps. Because the princeps was not interested in a bunch of greedy aristocrats ruining his tax-base in the long run.

Of course, it required the Romans to bother about actually administering the provinces, as opposed to just looting them.

Correct. However, they could have easily increased the workload , if they abolish the system of tax farming by roman publicani and implement direct taxing of cities like Julius Caesar introduced for Asia. This alone, helped a lot.

There was also room for improvement in the department of inner security. The romans just took care about revolts or conflicts between cities. Sometimes piracy or big brigand bands. Their support for the the cities, which were also responsible for huge adjacent counties, often without any police forces, was rather poor and did perhaps not happen before the 2nd century AD (beneficarius, centurio regionarius).

Same with iurisdiction. A roman governor travelled once a year from one juidicial district (conventus) to the next (e.g. 3 in Lusitania, 6-8 in Asia). If they do that just twice a year the workload increases significantly. And there would have been no time for a military campaign anymore. So a split of tasks or delegation / buerocratization becomes a must do.

Also the auditing of cities, was rather poor. The romans usually waited until a city was bankrupt by corrupt or incompetent local magistrates until they took action.

Furthermore, there was no role model for that. A consul or praetor in Italy had both civilian and military authority.

Unfortunately, this is true. The romans had no intention to divide powers, or implement a hierachy with clear delegation. Well, they did it to a certain extent functionally. A consul in Rome has not that many civil duties. It was more or less, just to run meetings of the senate, of the assemblies and manage the elections. While the other consul out of Rome was leading an army. Iurisdiction was mainly done by the praetors, finance and documentation by the queastors and a lot of administrative tasks by the aediles. And none of them reported to the consuls! So a functional split is possible in the roman world, which does not neccesarily mean a division of power in the modern sense.

So I could imagine, 2 pro-praetors in a province. One taking care about iurisdiction, auditing cities and taxation. While the other is leading the army in the province (external and internal security). Actually the romans did something similar. The pro-praetor usually used his quaestor and legates to split the work in every department. But it was up to him how to do it. It was not regulated by the senate.

The model they had included the possibility of, say, two magistrates with equal powers in every province (perhaps this starts in Spain; rather than dividing it into two provinces, they create one big-ass one with two proconsuls), but separating a military and civil sphere in a collegial magistrature was not done in Republican Rome.

I doubt this would work. The reason for smaller provinces was also to reduce travel time every year to the main cities (conventus). And Spain is a very bad example. In imperial times, the Tarraconensis was already too big. So the legatus legionis in Asturia always performed all tasks of the governor in Tarraco, which did not happen to such an extent in other provinces. Later a procurator did the job in Asturia on behalf of the governor, even if that was definately not his job and he was not reporting to him officially. So clearly this was exception handling. Distance had a meaning in ancient times.

But I agree, the romans would perhaps start with 2 pro-praetors, both with full power even in a smaller province like Sicilia, if just the workload would have been higher. But that needs a different roman understanding of a governors duties.
 
Last edited:
By the time of the Enlightenment, many admirers of Rome saw the institution of having two Executives as one of the chief flaws of the Republic. The American Founding Fathers are an excellent example, with the Federalist Papers having no qualms about dismissing such divided rule. Of course, the Romans themselves implicitly admitted this by virtue of the existence of the office of Dictator.

The challenge, therefore, is to devise a scenario in which the Roman Republic has one man as the supreme executive, elected regularly (so the Augustan Principate, no matter how much window-dressing you give it, does not count).

Now, there were plenty of times that the Romans were perfectly happy to appoint a Dictator for just about any reason. This also does not count. You can evolve the office of Dictator if you think that is the best course of action, but the office must be a regularly elected office; in other words, there should always be someone holding that title.

A republican one-man rule in Rome is an oxymoron.

The creation of the republic, or rather what roman aristocrats considered as the republic, was the principle of division of the executive power.

Why ? Because ancient cities could not imagine an other way of restricting power.

Rome and all ancient cities except Athens were not democracies. They did not consider that the legitimacy of power originated from the people. The power existed by itself : it was the power of the ancient kings, called imperium.

The only way to limit it was dividing it.

One-man power was an infringement of this principle : that's why ancient dictatorship had to be temporary and short term.

If ever the romans had conceived one-man rule for a single year term, as they did, then they would have made sure that a different man be elected each year in order to avoid one aristocrat becoming too powerful.

If they had ever thought of some kind of 5 years term, then this would not be a republic. In 5 years, an ambitious aristocrat would have had all necessary time to accumulate enough support to have himself re-elected again and again.
 
Top