Alternate Sullan Reforms

What kinds of minor changes in the Sullan Reforms would be plausible but still make a difference.

In our timeline, Sulla increased the number of praetors and made the provincial governors, who were also the military commanders for their province, drawn from the ranks of the previous years praetors and consuls.

Arguably this independent control of both military and civil administration had some serious knock-on effects. What if we posit a minor change? Sulla increases the number of praetors even more, and now in addition to the provincial governors, there are two consuls with executive authority over the military. So Rome has two consuls who have executive authority for Italy, and who are required to remain in Rome under Sulla's reforms, and then the year after these consuls take charge of the military but are required to stay outside Italy, just as the Sulla required the military to do. These new officers would be subject to the supervision of the Senate.

Would this have any real effects on Roman history or would it collapse along with most of the rest of the Sullan reforms?
 
What kinds of minor changes in the Sullan Reforms would be plausible but still make a difference.

In our timeline, Sulla increased the number of praetors and made the provincial governors, who were also the military commanders for their province, drawn from the ranks of the previous years praetors and consuls.

Arguably this independent control of both military and civil administration had some serious knock-on effects. What if we posit a minor change? Sulla increases the number of praetors even more, and now in addition to the provincial governors, there are two consuls with executive authority over the military. So Rome has two consuls who have executive authority for Italy, and who are required to remain in Rome under Sulla's reforms, and then the year after these consuls take charge of the military but are required to stay outside Italy, just as the Sulla required the military to do. These new officers would be subject to the supervision of the Senate.

Would this have any real effects on Roman history or would it collapse along with most of the rest of the Sullan reforms?

What would such a reform achieve that would be an advantage over OTL?
 
What would such a reform achieve that would be an advantage over OTL?

History is more about differences than advantages. In OTL, provincial governors sometimes used their armies as power bases. That might be more difficult to do in ATL, if the reform sticks. On the other hand, maybe the outside-Italy consuls get a little big for their britches, although their empire-wide command means they may not be able to develop the personal relationship with the troops in any one place like the governors did.

Anyway, that's my amateur understanding. Anyone who knows better, feel free to correct me.
 
Consider what Sulla did.

Social War had started by rebellion of the cities organizing their armies from scratch.

At the end of the Social War, Sulla was the commander of the bulk of the Roman Army, and was to be sent against Mithridates.

Marius and Sulpicius got the people to pressure for the command to be transferred to Marius.

At that point, Sulla called for his army to rebel against Rome, claiming that the transfer of command was illegal, achieved by violence, and that the soldiers would not get their wages/retirement rewards if they submitted to Marius. The common soldiers sided with Sulla and killed the officers Marius had sent to take command; but all their officers except one, Lucullus, sided with Rome. Sulla marched on Rome, Marius did not have another ready army at hand and could not quickly form one either, so he had to flee.

Sulla imposed a settlement and departed on the war. But after his departure the next consuls, Octavius and Cinna, fell out, Marius returned and allied to Cinna, they raised new armies from scratch and defeated Octavius. This left Marius and Cinna controlling Italy, and Sulla in the East.

The attempts of Cinna to send new armies to East and get rid of Sulla did not work. Sulla returned and defeated Marius Jr. and Carbo.

Like Pompey commented "If Sulla could, why can´t I"? Pompey never needed to, but Sulla set a bad precedent, which Caesar was to follow.

But not all who tried the same did succeed. The Republic did last for 30 years after Sulla.

What did Sulla do OTL to limit the power of future Roman generals to repeat his rebellion?
 
History is more about differences than advantages. In OTL, provincial governors sometimes used their armies as power bases. That might be more difficult to do in ATL, if the reform sticks. On the other hand, maybe the outside-Italy consuls get a little big for their britches, although their empire-wide command means they may not be able to develop the personal relationship with the troops in any one place like the governors did.

Anyway, that's my amateur understanding. Anyone who knows better, feel free to correct me.

When I asked what advantage the reform would achieve, it was because I don't see that the proposed reform would have prevented the governors from using their armies as power bases. I still don't. How is having two military consuls based outside of Italy going to achieve this? Are you saying the provincial governors no longer have command of the armies in their provinces?

Also, the central problem with the late Republican Roman military system...the fact that soldiers looked to their generals for pay, and more importantly, for retirement benefits after their service ends...is not addressed. If that is not addressed, then WHOEVER is in command of the provincial armies, be that a governor or a military consul, has a potential instrument for seizing power at his disposal. That instrument, by the nature of things, WILL be used, and will destroy the Republic. The only thing that could have saved the Republic is if the Roman central government had managed to create a system to tie the common soldier's loyalty to the State rather than to their generals. Some sort of central retirement and pay system would have done the trick. But that never happened, and the reform you propose does nothing to address it, either.
 
Last edited:
The consulship was the highest political office (with imperium anyway) which could be achieved in Rome (and its prestige continued from the Republic into the Empire). Expanding the college from 2 to 4 would have diminished this prestige - it would not have happened; no one (Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, whoever) would have increased the number of consuls. And as far as I know there was NO division of civil and military power until the Late Empire - after Diocletian and Constantine.
 
Top