AHC: Roman Shogunate

Would it be possible for the Roman Empire to "survive" as the holdings of a figurehead emperor in Rome/Milan/Ravenna/Constantinople, while various warlords fight for imperial backing, hegemony of the Mediterranean, and title of magister militum? Basically, the shogunate reoccurring as a Roman system.

In a way, the late Western Empire seemed very close to this with the emperors declining and magister militum running the show. Perhaps if the Germanic tribes converted to Chalcedonian Christianity, and were thus more motivated to fight over Rome?
 
They'd have to be extremely wary of the East Roman Emperor,not to mention,they often tried to marry their children into the imperial family or somehow get their children who's got more Roman blood onto the throne.
 
I'd doubt it, you would need the political structure to decentralize to point you were you not also have a magister militum, but the emperor has to be seen as powerless to not even warrant claiming the title. Perhaps the Julio-Claudians actually last long to at least be a venerable dynasty, because once it becomes anyone with a strong army can take over I doubt you can get a shogunate analog.
 
I'd doubt it, you would need the political structure to decentralize to point you were you not also have a magister militum, but the emperor has to be seen as powerless to not even warrant claiming the title. Perhaps the Julio-Claudians actually last long to at least be a venerable dynasty, because once it becomes anyone with a strong army can take over I doubt you can get a shogunate analog.
Notably though, non-Romans could not be emperor, which is why Stilicho and Ricimer never became emperors. At a certain point, there were no more Romans with military or economic power in the west, but Chalcedonian Christianity, the concept of the empire, and Latin remained prestigious.
 
Notably though, non-Romans could not be emperor, which is why Stilicho and Ricimer never became emperors. At a certain point, there were no more Romans with military or economic power in the west, but Chalcedonian Christianity, the concept of the empire, and Latin remained prestigious.
But they can always try and maneuver their sons into becoming one.Some of Stilicho's moves indicates that's what he wants to do in case Honorius didn't father a son with his daughter.
 
Shooting much further into the future, why not have John Tzimskes avoid assassination and thus prevent Basil II from having to become a military man? The Macedonian Dynasty, at that point, had a history of non-dynasts taking effective power (Romanos I, Nikephoros II, John I) without holding the imperial throne itself - such a situation could evolve into a court emperor in Constantinople and a "Shogun" general on the Syrian frontier. Not that it would be the best possible evolution for the Romans, but if you avoid the post-Basil dynastic struggles...
 
Shooting much further into the future, why not have John Tzimskes avoid assassination and thus prevent Basil II from having to become a military man? The Macedonian Dynasty, at that point, had a history of non-dynasts taking effective power (Romanos I, Nikephoros II, John I) without holding the imperial throne itself - such a situation could evolve into a court emperor in Constantinople and a "Shogun" general on the Syrian frontier. Not that it would be the best possible evolution for the Romans, but if you avoid the post-Basil dynastic struggles...
All three claimed the imperial throne as senior emperor.
 

Spengler

Banned
They never needed one, the fact you could have a Co-Emperor allowed a technical shogunate to exist when necessary throughout the long history of the Empire.
 
It seems to me like the greatest obstacle to this is an ideological one, namely that the Roman empire, in both its classical and Byzantine forms, never fully accepted the principle of hereditary succession. Hereditary succession often happened - sometimes several times, consecutively - but underneath there was always a persistent idea that legitimacy could be gained through means other than blood, such as popular acclaim, military victory, and so on. Ultimately, the source for that idea may well have been the anti-monarchical ideology of republican Rome and the nature of their government, in which even a "new man" could hold the highest offices if he had merit and virtue.

If you want a "Roman Shogunate," I think you need to go way back at least into the earliest days of the empire - if not even further back - and find a way to create a lasting Roman dynasty that quashes this anti-monarchical/meritocratic idea and hammers into the minds of generation after generation of subjects that blood alone confers legitimacy.
 
It seems to me like the greatest obstacle to this is an ideological one, namely that the Roman empire, in both its classical and Byzantine forms, never fully accepted the principle of hereditary succession. Hereditary succession often happened - sometimes several times, consecutively - but underneath there was always a persistent idea that legitimacy could be gained through means other than blood, such as popular acclaim, military victory, and so on. Ultimately, the source for that idea may well have been the anti-monarchical ideology of republican Rome and the nature of their government, in which even a "new man" could hold the highest offices if he had merit and virtue.

If you want a "Roman Shogunate," I think you need to go way back at least into the earliest days of the empire - if not even further back - and find a way to create a lasting Roman dynasty that quashes this anti-monarchical/meritocratic idea and hammers into the minds of generation after generation of subjects that blood alone confers legitimacy.
Quite.
Having Julius Caesar have a son who becomes first Emperor instead of Octavian, then have an unbroken line of Caesars for a few generations. Get the whole 'Divine Julius' thing going more strongly and insist that he was the son of Jupiter (Mars, Venus, whomever), and that only a someone in the direct line could possibly be Emperor. Then the warring generals fight for Shogun equivalent, not Emperor.

Should be doable, but NEEDS a PoD before the Empire, IMO.
 
Quite.
Having Julius Caesar have a son who becomes first Emperor instead of Octavian, then have an unbroken line of Caesars for a few generations. Get the whole 'Divine Julius' thing going more strongly and insist that he was the son of Jupiter (Mars, Venus, whomever), and that only a someone in the direct line could possibly be Emperor. Then the warring generals fight for Shogun equivalent, not Emperor.

Should be doable, but NEEDS a PoD before the Empire, IMO.

Well the Julii already claimed descent from Venus, so that provides a parallel with the Japanese Emperors' descent from the sun goddess.
 
Notably though, non-Romans could not be emperor, which is why Stilicho and Ricimer never became emperors. At a certain point, there were no more Romans with military or economic power in the west, but Chalcedonian Christianity, the concept of the empire, and Latin remained prestigious.
Stilicho and Ricimer never became emperor not because there was a taboo against it (Stilicho was as Roman as anyone anyway), but because it was simply easier to control a puppet emperor, and they almost certianly didn't have the support to pull off a coup themselves.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this basically the 5th century OTL?

The Emperor in Ravenna had less and less power while big generals had actual control, Odoacre for example.
 
Stilicho and Ricimer never became emperor not because there was a taboo against it (Stilicho was as Roman as anyone anyway), but because it was simply easier to control a puppet emperor, and they almost certianly didn't have the support to pull off a coup themselves.

Wasn't that the same thing with Japan? Only a few shoguns ever had the power to become emperor themselves, and by the mid-late Ashikaga Shogunate, that time had since passed since the Japanese emperor was too well established. A shogun like Ashikaga Yoshimitsu could have become emperor and legitimised it perhaps like China, but he didn't because there was something of a taboo against it and he'd start a huge fight breaking the taboo (a winnable one, granted). And I see something similar in late Imperial Rome. So perhaps the situation in 5th century Western Rome is akin to Japan to some degree. If the situation persists and some manner of Western Roman revival occurs, could the magister militum become the "Roman shogun?"

There's still the issue with the Eastern Empire, and if they made a clean break from things, they'd just be like Odoacer or otherwise not legitimately Roman anymore.
 
Top