AHC: Save the Roman Empire (with a twist)

[Mental_Wizard]

(real talk)
Is it wrong to say that a plague cannot be butterflied?
Plague started before the theoretical POD. Even so, it would seem slightly ASB to me for human actions to stop plague completely.

(back to the discussion)

@RogueTraderEnthusiast
Your idea of an anti-corruption agency of sorts is interesting. My only problems are the role of the army and the consuls.
Separating the army from the idea of usurpation may only be hindered if you give them more power. Once people have tasted power, they do not stop eating. The dual consulate also seems a bit too much like the anarchy of the Late Republic. Whichever consul has the army is going to be able to overthrow his counterpart easily.

So how do you ensure a safe, stable, and smart succession?

IMHO... You have to "recruit" Emperors. The smartest and strongest are needed, so that they can use good judgement on who to pick next.

Step 1: Emperors must always have competent heir capable of assuming the throne in an emergency. One dies? Get another one.

Step 2: This candidate for the purple nominated by the current Emperor needs the support of the army, senate, and people.

and that's all I can think of right now...

 

[Agricola]

Please expand and provide some evidence for pretty much all of the "processes" you described, like the poor recruitment process or the "indeptedness" of cities and the corrupt administrations.

You need to explain how these various problems were inevitable and would happen to the same degree no matter what.

For an in depth analysis of the reasons for usurpations in the 3rd century, which are different to the 1st or 4th century, I recommend the dissertation of Felix Hartmann. Actually the only monography about usurpation and this timeframe. Unfortunately all big monographies about usurpation are in german. Well there is one australian dissertation, but I could not get it.

Felix Hartmann - eingegangen
Herrscherwechsel und Reichskrise
Volume 149 of Europäische Hochschulschriften: Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften
Volume 149 of Europäische Hochschulschriften
Volume 149 of Europäische Hochschulschriften: Rechtswissenschaft
Publisher P. Lang, 1982
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized 25 Jun 2008
ISBN 3820461957, 9783820461954

For the increasing indeptedness of the cities and the rise of the curatores and prefecti civitatis every decent book about the history of the roman economy should be fine. Here you find a lot of english books. If you can read german I recommend:

Walter Langhammer
Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus municipales und der Decuriones in der Übergangsphase der Städte von sich selbstverwalten Gemeinden zu Vollzugsorganen des spätantiken Zwangsstaates.
Verlag: Steiner Franz Verlag, 1973
ISBN 3515001107, 9783515001106

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

For the increasing indeptedness of the cities and the rise of the curatores and prefecti civitatis every decent book about the history of the roman economy should be fine. Here you find a lot of english books. If you can read german I recommend:

Walter Langhammer
Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus municipales und der Decuriones in der Übergangsphase der Städte von sich selbstverwalten Gemeinden zu Vollzugsorganen des spätantiken Zwangsstaates.
Verlag: Steiner Franz Verlag, 1973
ISBN 3515001107, 9783515001106

This book seems a bit outdated to me. Recent historians have revised their view on the Dominate and now emphasize the continuity between Principate and Dominate over the differences. "Zwangsstaat" is a concept implying that the Dominate was more authoritarian than the Principate, even though in both systems the emperor held absolute power.

 

[Agricola]

This book seems a bit outdated to me. Recent historians have revised their view on the Dominate and now emphasize the continuity between Principate and Dominate over the differences. "Zwangsstaat" is a concept implying that the Dominate was more authoritarian than the Principate, even though in both systems the emperor held absolute power.

Don't assess the book by title or the use of the word "Zwangsstaat". The history of the roman cities and the reasons for increasing indebtness and more direct control by the central government is well described. Not worse than in any later book. Actually, any book about roman city managment should be sufficient.

 

[Agricola]

Presumably with a more competent succession ...

How, should that work with the roman constitution in mind. And has a stable succession ever existed in human history, and why exactly was it stable?

 

[Agricola]

So, a very capable Emperor X adopted by Marcus Aurelius might reign for, let's say, 20 years (180 CE - 200 CE), butterflying away the excesses of Commodus, the short reigns of Pertinax and Didius Julianus, and at least the first half of Septimius Severus' reign with the civil war against Perennius Niger and Clodius Albinus.

The principate brought 250 years of Pax Romana, interupted just by 2 very short civil wars. Actually the Late Empire had way more usurpations than the principate. The principate even had more bad than good emperors.

A short civil war or a bad emperor does not explain the total collapse after Severus Alexander.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

How, should that work with the roman constitution in mind. And has a stable succession ever existed in human history, and why exactly was it stable?

Sorry I meant to say successor. As in a more competent successor to Aurelius. Someone like Avidius Cassius. I understand that the Roman empire is still going to have a lot of problems in the third century that are unavoidable. There will still be some coin debasement, the plague is still going to wreak havoc, farming productivity will drop, and there will he serious pressure on their borders. The problem is Commodus, and then the Severans, seriously exasperated the economic and political problems the empire faced which helped turn the 3rd century from just a rough time to bringing the Roman empire to its knees and almost complete collapse.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Don't assess the book by title or the use of the word "Zwangsstaat". The history of the roman cities and the reasons for increasing indebtness and more direct control by the central government is well described. Not worse than in any later book. Actually, any book about roman city managment should be sufficient.

You mentionned two points in your posts, the increasing imperial control of the cities and the growing indebtedness of the same. I can't give you any sources as I haven't my books with me, so here is what I read:

1) Well, the question is if the direct control was really as tight as you described it. The curatores civitatis were often appointed by the emperors on the proposition of the city councils, which makes the whole point of an "autocratic" administration quite weak.

Also, I doubt that the whole Roman administration of the Dominate was more corrupt or autocratic than that of the Principate - corruption was a constant complain in Roman times. Bureaucracy grew larger, but it never reached modern levels.

2) The imperial control of the cities was necessary due to the debts of the cities, partly caused by the cities' architectural megalomania - so I don't think that the increasing bureaucracy was the real problem. The problem were the cities, unable to control their budget.

Where I completly agree with you is that Commodus isn't the one to blame the problems on. @Mental_Wizard I know you may think that Marcus Aurelius was a succesful ruler, but in fact, he had gigantic problems to deal with. The plague, the Parthians, the Germans and Sarmatians, as well as financial and economic problems created by these.

These problems aren't new ones; they origin in mistakes of earlier generations. Augustus, due to Varus's incompetence, wasn't able to conquer Germania. Hadrian abandoned the valuable Mesopotamic provinces, without whom Parthia can not wage war.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

@G.Washington_Fuckyeah I agree that he had an extremely troubled reign. I put after his death however, because of the change in succession. He was the last Emperor before the Crisis of the 3rd Century that did not usurp power or get assassinated (or both). He was not a bad ruler, however. He pushed back against the Parthians and Marcomanni/Quadi, while still preventing the Empire from completely collapsing from the Plague. The problems a ruler faces do not determine the quality of the ruler.
ex. Roman Empire was almost completely gone in the late 3rd century. Aurelian reconquered the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires. Did he save the world? No, but he did pretty well considering what he had.

If you think an earlier POD is needed... then go for it. I think I mentioned in another thread somewhere my disdain for Hadrian's policies- completely agree with you that these problems are not new. Maybe Lusius Quietus succeeding Trajan would be more plausible for a long-term stronger Rome?

I appreciate your comment a lot. It has actually made me reconsider the actual reasons Rome fell. Also made me think about whether Commodus inherited a better Rome than Marcus Aurelius did.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

I still insist on a POD where the problem of succession is solved. If it takes a POD as early as Augustus, so be it.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I still insist on a POD where the problem of succession is solved. If it takes a POD as early as Augustus, so be it.

No no, you don't understand. The problem isn't succession - succesion perfectly worked between Augustus and Commodus (the only exception being the year of the four emperors). These are 200 years of stability. Find me a country which lived through two hundred years of stability - remember that even primogeniture, a very clear order of succession, can lead to civil war. Think of the War of the Roses. Think of the various succession wars in the 18th century.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

@G.Washington_Fuckyeah Britain after the Glorious Revolution? (are the 15' and 45' big enough to count as removing stability?)
Denmark? Sweden?
I assume you mean monarchies- so that is all the countries with monarchs I feel had 200+ years of stability.

I am not saying you are wrong- I agree with what you said in fact. I am just playing devil's advocate in looking for exceptions.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I am not saying you are wrong- I agree with what you said in fact. I am just playing devil's advocate in looking for exceptions.

What I'm trying to say is that the Principate's constitution wasn't as bad as some said in this thread. It was a very viable regime and therefore lasted for more than 200 years - compared with other forms of government in other times or places.

 

[DominusNovus]

Save the Roman Empire...
By having a more competent successor to Marcus Aurelius do everything positive he could, while explaining your rationale.

I would take increased stability, wealth, territorial bounds, or technological progress in the long-term as successful. Take into account stuff like earthquakes and plague cannot be butterflied. Watch out for barbarians too.

Go!

Have a more competent successor to Marcus Aurelius? Thats easy: Commodus proves as prone to dying before his father as all his other siblings. Marcus Aurelius had a wealth of lieutenants to choose from, and adopting one of them, whichever you think is the best (and I do think everyone's being unfairly hard on the Severans as a whole; certainly Septimius and Alexander were more capable than not).

Stability would come from better succession.

Wealth would come from stability.

Territory bounds, meh, not crucial. They're about to be hit with the first major wave of migrations, and it would be better to just hold on to what they've got, if that.

Technology... I'd love to see Galen figure out vaccination. And there's all sorts of little inventions that the Romans could really use. Paper (and eventually printing), heavy plows, horse collars, stirrups, three or four-field rotation, distillation, not to mention gunpowder. Take your pick, though some require some predecessors.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Have a more competent successor to Marcus Aurelius? Thats easy: Commodus proves as prone to dying before his father as all his other siblings. Marcus Aurelius had a wealth of lieutenants to choose from, and adopting one of them, whichever you think is the best (and I do think everyone's being unfairly hard on the Severans as a whole; certainly Septimius and Alexander were more capable than not).

.

Septimius Severus was a capable emperor, that much is not in doubt. However his policies exacerbated Rome's economic problems. Same goes for army discipline.

 

[DominusNovus]

Septimius Severus was a capable emperor, that much is not in doubt. However his policies exacerbated Rome's economic problems. Same goes for army discipline.

I won't disagree, but have to think that he had solid reasons for his policies.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

DominusNovus wrote:

Paper (and eventually printing), heavy plows, horse collars, stirrups, three or four-field rotation, distillation, not to mention gunpowder. Take your pick, though some require some predecessors.

The Romans, if we by that mean people living in the Roman Empire, had (at least according to some)

heavy plows,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough

horse collars,
http://www.humanist.de/rome/harnessing/collar.html

distillation
http://montgomerydistillery.com/our-process/distilling/

and three-field rotation.
http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscie...much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages

But maybe you mean that the technology should have been more spread or developed in the empire?

 

[Agricola]

Step 1: Emperors must always have competent heir capable of assuming the throne in an emergency. One dies? Get another one.

Step 2: This candidate for the purple nominated by the current Emperor needs the support of the army, senate, and people.

And who has the power to enforce these 2 rules? Against the will of an emperor.

 

[Agricola]

The problem with conquering is that it doesn't solve the problem with "bordering the evil Barbarians".
Every time you conquer new territories you get other Barbarians bordering your new province(s) - usually even more warlike and unruly.
And instead of one problem you now have two problems - 1) new provinces are restless by definition; 2) these unstable provinces face new unstable warlike Barbarians across the border.
You might get kind of a perfect storm here...

You are partially right with your statement. But overall I like to disagree.

Historians estimated, that Germania had about 2 Mio inhabitants. And the vast majority was living west of the Elbe and South of the Sudetes Mountains. So if you conquer Germania Magna up to the Elbe again, including so called Marcomannia and Sarmatia (todays Czechia, Slowakia and Hungary), there are just some tribes with lower population rest. And they can't grow that much, because the land East of the Elbe was a rather infertile these times.

But I agree, during the timeframe of romanization, which could take 100 years or more, there is always the danger, that almost pacified tribes ally with free tribes and revolt. This was probably the experience the romans made in Mid-England south of the Hadrians Wall.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

And who has the power to enforce these 2 rules? Against the will of an emperor.

Sadly, it does seem that we need the genuine movement to an independent judiciary/dis-empowering the Emperor. Hence why I say you need an Emperor scared at the reaches of his own power.

I'm starting to think that we need to acknowledge that without reducing the office of Emperor dramatically, it'll be the point of weakness.

So, anti-corruption agency, independent judiciary. Is there any way to maintain the Emperor as Commander-In-Chief whilst still having the rest of the army accepting that if the Emperor breaks the law, he is no longer the C-I-C? I'm not sure how to do that.