Re: #1, the Germanics and Persians were getting more dangerous, so the frontiers had more threats. This means more opportunities for ambitious generals to pull crap.
AHC: Stable Roman Imperial Government
- Thread starter Timmy811
- Start date
Thank you. That makes more since than the generals just kept overthrowing each other and eventually declared independence.
Esopo
Banned
no it wasnt. Other relevant factors in giving legittimation to the princepes were the earlier princeps, the roman elites, like the senate, and sometimes even the mere mob of rome.
I dont know What you are Talking about crusades, Stalin and popes.
Snake Featherston
Banned
"How many divisions has the Pope" -J. Stalin. The maxim I referred to.
The Crusades of 1204 were responsible for ruining the last phase of the Roman Empire, and to put it bluntly no Imperial dynasty in the Classical Empire had a claim more sophisticated than "the soldiers want me."
MAlexMatt
Banned
They remained extremely important even after the Dominate. I'm trying to remember exactly which Emperor it was, but a post-Diocletian Emperor made a tour of the Empire once, going through the whole 'divine ruler' spiel all across the Empire until he reached Italy, at which point he 'took off' the persona, as it were, and pretended to once more be just one of the guys.
It was only as time went on and the situation really started to fall apart that these forms started to disappear and not without some friction amongst the Italian elites.
Stalin once made a famous quip, "How many divisions have the Pope?" in regards to the actual power of the Pope, who nominally rules a billion Catholics, but if the 1204 fourth crusade to defend Byzantium was any example, especially to judge from his shocked reaction, very few at best. In regards to crusades, you were talking about defending Byzantium from the Turks. All of which were in regards to your connecting Roman history to defense against the Turk.
Frankly, that the Roman Empire was unstable thanks to frontier invasions, and not due to free-minded generals doesn't make sense. The best argument I can think of off the top of my head without recalling any sources or any research of any sort is the fact that three quarters of all Roman Emperors were generals who had seized the throne by force or had bid for it with money from the Praetorian Guard, which had done the seizing. In the former case, it was the direct cause of the frontier invasions to which the instability is erroneously attributed; The armies of the soldier-emperors were often drawn from frontier forces.
And that civil war was uncommon in the post-republican era is flatly false. The entire third century was a civil war, the time past that was invasions (which didn't necessarily end civil wars), the second century was the only era of peace, during which five emperors had anything resembling a stable reign (and one was an sextegenarian who reigned for three years, and the death of another ushered in total chaos) and the first century was a gigantic screwed-up sitcom.
Esopo
Banned
But Why did you talk about the pope and the crusades?
Here you are forgetting that adoption Was formally a claim extremely important.
Snake Featherston
Banned
It was in reference to Rome "defending" Byzantium. Unless we're talking Westmoreland or Ludendorff, most people consider destroying something the opposite of saving it. You do, by chance, actually read your posts and what you post, yes?
Well, you did mention how included in Roman history was the defense of Byzantium from the Turks.
I am given to understand that four emperors managed to ensure a stable succession through adoption. Four. Out of a total of more than a hundred and fifty separate emperors.
Snake Featherston
Banned
And it's worth noting that the last, Marcus Aurelius, broke the chain because he had a son that was of age to succeed him. Appropriately given the fate of the Empire during and after his reign, he was named Commodus.
Esopo
Banned
Oh but i Was Talking about the romans defending their capital in 1453
@malexmatt i agree.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Except that those were the ERE, and the defense in this case was the product of the Ottomans deciding to Hell with kingmakers, they wanted to be kings. They had already been quasi-rulers of the ERE's last dynastic system for a long time before the final conquest. And your post did not make it clear that you were actually referring to East-Rome, I thought you were referring to Roma Aeterna.
Esopo
Banned
We are Talking of claim of legitimation. It didnt always work, but un like What snake said force wasnt the only claim.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Force *was* the only claim. The Julio-Claudians had the claim of defeating Antony in a civil war. The Flavians defeated Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. The Five Good Emperors got where they did from a popular general whose legitimacy to rule was not challenged, and Trajan was no exemplar of civilian rule. The Severans rose by civil war, and by the Third Century the Empire was only where Imperial legions were encamped for a long portion of Imperial history.
Esopo
Banned
I Was refering to the byzantines-Romans defending their capital Against the turks as the last chapter of roman History with the first being the espansion in italy, but i admit it Was not clear.
Esopo
Banned
Formally the advice of the earlier emperor, but after civil wars, remained an important source of legitimation
Snake Featherston
Banned
So why is this one the last chapter if we factor that the Ottomans were already making and breaking Emperors prior to 1453? The only change was the Ottomans cutting out the middleman, so to speak, and assuming direct over indirect control.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Which in practice amounts to "because my legions kicked the ass of all the other legions. So there." Again, every single dynasty began that way, and the instant their control slipped, boom goes the dynamite.
Esopo
Banned
Because with constantinople fallen even the formal independence of the old roman capital.