AHC: Stable Roman Imperial Government

[Snake Featherston]

Because with constantinople fallen even the formal independence of the old roman capital.

But since when did Constantinople have a base on the river Tiber?

But practice and claim are two different things.

Sure, they are. In practice not a dynasty or an emperor lasted if they didn't follow the wise words of the first Severan: "Give money to the soldiers and scorn all other men."

 

[Timmy811]

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.

The guy is quite right in that the first two hundred years of the Empire, it didn't have any major drawn out civil wars. He was asking what factors caused that to change in the 3rd century.

 

[Timmy811]

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?

It's pretty obvious he considers Byzantium fighting Rome part of Roman history and wasn't referencing the West in any way. (Although I personally object to that characterization, it's extremely common)

 

[Vingilótë]

The guy is quite right in that the first two hundred years of the Empire, it didn't have any major drawn out civil wars. He was asking what factors caused that to change in the 3rd century.

The first century is of debatable stability, if the Julio-Claudian farce is anything to go by, and the aforementioned second century was, of course, the Pax Romana. However, the Crisis is generally dated as having started with Commodus, who did not need any help from barbarian invaders to usher in an era of batshit insanity, and cause a string of civil wars which would lead to the full-blown crisis.

 

[Faeelin]

What marks the threshold between the old system, and the Byzantine reforms that see the ERE as a proto-state instead of an army with a state in the West?

...

That's the model you need. When the Emperor says jump, "at me with a dagger" should NOT be what his rivals finish the sentence with.

Isn't the latter the very definition of Byzantine politics? It's not like its successor system was stable either.

 

[Elfwine]

Isn't the latter the very definition of Byzantine politics? It's not like its successor system was stable either.

Look at this list of England's kings, starting from the Conquest and ending with the Tudor dynasty:

William I: Arguably usurper
William II: Mysterious death
Henry I: Usurper
Stephen: Usurper
Henry II: War with his own sons
John: War with both his barons and his nephew
Henry III: War with his barons
Edward I
Edward II: Overthrown and possibly murdered
Edward III
Richard II: Overthrown and probably murdered
Henry IV: Usurper, quite a few rebellions and attempted rebellions.
Henry V (although it was a near thing)
Henry VI: Overthrown and murdered
Edward IV: Usurper
Edward V: Overthrown, fate unknown
Richard III: Usurper, overthrown after two years


I'm not saying Byzantine succession was completely peaceful, but its tendency towards violence and coups is exaggerated while at the same time people ignore medieval England (one can compare medieval France as largely stable, but as the infamous Gibbon was an Englishman, I'm looking at his country for comparison) being arguably "wracked with disputed successions and civil war" with at least as much legitimacy as any claim that the ERE was.

There's nothing comparable to the nineteen year long Anarchy either. Even the ten years between Manzikert and Alexius I taking the throne is arguably not as bad for the people as the state.

 

[Timmy811]

Look at this list of England's kings, starting from the Conquest and ending with the Tudor dynasty:

William I: Arguably usurper
William II: Mysterious death
Henry I: Usurper
Stephen: Usurper
Henry II: War with his own sons
John: War with both his barons and his nephew
Henry III: War with his barons
Edward I
Edward II: Overthrown and possibly murdered
Edward III
Richard II: Overthrown and probably murdered
Henry IV: Usurper, quite a few rebellions and attempted rebellions.
Henry V (although it was a near thing)
Henry VI: Overthrown and murdered
Edward IV: Usurper
Edward V: Overthrown, fate unknown
Richard III: Usurper, overthrown after two years

Damn, even though I knew what happened to each of them, when you line them all up like that it really looks much more unstable than I'd expect.

 

[Elfwine]

Damn, even though I knew what happened to each of them, when you line them all up like that it really looks much more unstable than I'd expect.

It does.

I think the actual amount of time spent in succession-related troubles is fairly short in absolute terms, considering that this is over a not quite four century period - but taking rulers individually, the majority of them were either usurpers or faced rebels or both.

I think the lack of concern on the part of the relevant people - the army mostly, but not exclusively - for "legitimacy" except by victory hurt pre-Byzantine Rome here.

The Macedonian dynasty managed to establish itself so well that Constantine VII being believed to be threatened by his brothers in law was a thought to send Constantinople's people boiling.

And this with Constantine's only claim to be worth caring about being that he was born into the purple of a popular Imperial house. He's done nothing except exist.

 

[Vingilótë]

I think that another factor which makes the list somewhat misleading is the difference in reign time. With the Roman Emperors, for example, you had some 150 emperors over a four century reign period; during the worst of the crises, reigns were generally measured in months.

The list of English monarchs also takes place over four hundred years, but there are barely a dozen and a half monarchs. There are some monarchs who fought civil wars all their lives, such as Stephen, but most fought brief succession wars, and then settled down (sort of, mostly, comparatively). English reigns, with some exceptions, were measured in decades.

 

[Daztur]

I think that another factor which makes the list somewhat misleading is the difference in reign time. With the Roman Emperors, for example, you had some 150 emperors over a four century reign period; during the worst of the crises, reigns were generally measured in months.

The list of English monarchs also takes place over four hundred years, but there are barely a dozen and a half monarchs. There are some monarchs who fought civil wars all their lives, such as Stephen, but most fought brief succession wars, and then settled down (sort of, mostly, comparatively). English reigns, with some exceptions, were measured in decades.

That's probably due to it being a hell of a lot easier to be an English king who doesn't currently control London than an ERE Emperor without Constantinople.

 

[Elfwine]

I think that another factor which makes the list somewhat misleading is the difference in reign time. With the Roman Emperors, for example, you had some 150 emperors over a four century reign period; during the worst of the crises, reigns were generally measured in months.

The list of English monarchs also takes place over four hundred years, but there are barely a dozen and a half monarchs. There are some monarchs who fought civil wars all their lives, such as Stephen, but most fought brief succession wars, and then settled down (sort of, mostly, comparatively). English reigns, with some exceptions, were measured in decades.

Well, the purpose of this comparison was the English monarchy to the Byzantine monarchy in the late eleventh century onward.

Classical Rome was unstable - "Byzantine" Rome is goes through - counting underaged princes and monarchs whose reigns overlap with others - 27 in 372 years.

So that's, on average (and not counting monarchs whose reigns overlapped with that of others): 15 and a half years each.

For the 16 English kings between 1087 and 1485, counting Edward V (dethroned before he reached his majority, just as Alexius II and John IV were).

24.875 years for England's kings in a period of 398 years.

Both overshadow the Roman era Timmy is talking about. But Henry II, John, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Richard III would all dispute that an English king died "in peace" - all six died thanks to rebellions/attempts to overthrow them, the last four directly, the first two of illness while trying to deal with it.

 

[Timmy811]

I think that another factor which makes the list somewhat misleading is the difference in reign time. With the Roman Emperors, for example, you had some 150 emperors over a four century reign period; during the worst of the crises, reigns were generally measured in months.

The list of English monarchs also takes place over four hundred years, but there are barely a dozen and a half monarchs. There are some monarchs who fought civil wars all their lives, such as Stephen, but most fought brief succession wars, and then settled down (sort of, mostly, comparatively). English reigns, with some exceptions, were measured in decades.

Well, from 27 BC - 192 AD there were 17 different Emperors not counting Lucius Versus, whose reign completely overlapped with his senior co-emperor Marcus Aurelius. That's an average of 12.88 years per Emperor, not that bad. The other 130ish emperors reigned from 192-476.

What we're looking for here is ideas to prolong and enhance the earlier level of stability. It seems the most we can come up with is X emperor gets lucky and has several long lived descendants succeed him in succession. Can't we come up with anything better than that?