An Age of Miracles Continues: The Empire of Rhomania

I'm correct in saying b444 has already mentioned he doesn't want the position of emperor to become a symbolic figurehead like the British one right? He wants one where the emperors still have quite a bit of de facto power even if some is shared with democratic institutions like the Senate. To be honest I'd really find it really interesting to read about a successful monarchy especially one that would be more than 2000 years old in a world of snobby liberal democracies. Kinda bored of the whole "only western style democracies can succeed in the modern world long term" thing. To be honest I'd like this for more than just the Roman's ngl hope the Shahanshah and at least two of the Vijayanagar/Chinese/Japanese/Korean monarchs keep alot of their power while still being enlightened/responsible states
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
I'm correct in saying b444 has already mentioned he doesn't want the position of emperor to become a symbolic figurehead like the British one right? He wants one where the emperors still have quite a bit of de facto power even if some is shared with democratic institutions like the Senate. To be honest I'd really find it really interesting to read about a successful monarchy especially one that would be more than 2000 years old in a world of snobby liberal democracies. Kinda bored of the whole "only western style democracies can succeed in the modern world long term" thing. To be honest I'd like this for more than just the Roman's ngl hope the Shahanshah and at least two of the Vijayanagar/Chinese/Japanese/Korean monarchs keep alot of their power while still being enlightened/responsible states
Yeah, from what I recall B444 is thinking something closer to pre-Glorious Revolution Britain or a modification on Prussian Constitutionalism, obviously with Roman characteristics of course.

And I agree, it would be interesting if some of the Great Powers of the modern world were some mix of enlightened monarchy or something rather than all true democratic or republican governments.
 
Last edited:
That much "disposable" labour could offer two large investments, if the empire was not being governed by facists. First, a massive roads and ports upgrading and expanding, with second, new settlements on those new networks. With the highlands becoming wilder, it would make sense to building new roads into them and organize it. The cost would be monumental, but with the mini ice age, now is the time to find and develop new lands not needed to be considered before. The higher elevations would experience the seasonal melt earlier, and could be what puts the potato on the Roman plate. And stop messing around and finally invent blue potato gnocchi.

Heraklios needs to wake the hell up. I know not every Sideros is going to be like the first three, it just sucks he is right after them. Like he could have been just a caretaker Sideros and that wouldn't have been tough, even with the mini ice age. I hope at least some cultural blossoming will happen like modern theatre and orchestras. He is indulgent if not indolent. Chariot racing too, imagine the bitter irony of the masses watching better fed horses running around while chewing their free loaf.
A solid public works program would be a good idea to build more and better infrastructure and provide employment. I feel though it would be like the National Workshops in France in 1848. It starts for a bit, soon gets lots of opposition from the "better" parts of society because of the expense, and then get shut down, with the option of massive public backlash and military suppression.

And yeah, Herakleios is a tool. Not at all like his younger brother Demetrios or cousin/wife Sophia, as will be shown. The latter two got the competence allotted to his generation of Sideroi.
It's a recipe for a French Revolution...and Leo Kalomares will be the Napoleon who "cleans up" the mess after.
Funnily enough, the idea of having Leo Kalomeros far predated the idea of having...whatever you call this.
The Romans are doing the Enclosure Acts just as the Kingdom of England did IOTL. And just as in England, it's spawning masses of human misery in the name of agricultural efficiency.

The Army of Suffering must be a peasant revolt that grows into a national crisis of sorts.
It was quite eye-opening for me to be reading about the 1600s and 1700s and seeing how much enclosure was deeply resented and a major source of agitation. While claims of agricultural efficiency are accurate (if made in good faith), it is interesting how often this bit of history is left out of "narratives of progress".
Are the Tourmarches looking to expand the size of the Roman army too? IIRC the Romans are the only ones with an entirely standing army, so an expansion will strain the finances.
Are they generate additional revenue too?
At some point. Right now they're focusing on building up the material basis to support said larger army. Bigger farms and workshops with economies of scale can produce more food and equipment, which is why they're removing just economics legislation to make it easier for those to form and grow.
almost to 500! also, I maybe this already has been resolved but is the avignon/maniz schism still ongoing at 1650? if so i've been wondering about the chances of unification even if its at first only de jure, in order to present a united front against the romans to the south and the bohmist triunes to the northwest.
It's not. It very recently got resolved during the middle of the war in Germany, and for the exact reasons you pointed out.

Third Thread: The next update proper will start a Thread III. I'll post a link here to the new thread once it exists.

Roman Monarchy: The Roman monarchy will survive to the present day ITTL, and it will have some degree of actual power, although the exact level is up in the air. It won't be like present-day ceremonial European monarchs. That said, I don't think the 'absolute autocrat' model is a good model, as the current storyline in the TL is illustrating. It's a system with a single point of failure, the nature of the autocrat. I prefer something with a few more fail-safes. Ideally, my rough plans for future Roman government will make sense ITTL and fit organically into the story but would confuse people IOTL a lot if the modern TTL Roman Empire ISOTed into our world. It won't fit neatly into our poli-sci categories. I haven't given much thought to how other countries' modern governments would look, but China and the Ottomans both seem like good choices for this 'monarchy still has some executive power but isn't either a glorified potted plant or an absolute autocrat'. And considering that this is a spectrum, the monarchs could be at different points in this spectrum.
 
Kinda bored of the whole "only western style democracies can succeed in the modern world long term" thing.
One party states have been a pretty persistent feature of the modern age, so for a certain value of successful they count among “viable” regimes in modern times.

However one feature we see in modern consolidated autocracies that contrasts with their stuff pre-modern predecessors is hereditary succession largely falling out of favor in all but the fruitiest of banana republic and petro states.

It would be genuinely interesting to see some kind of elective monarchy ITTL, even though one could make the argument that’s functionally a presidential/parliamentary republic depending on whether the monarch is elected by the legislature or by direct vote.

In fact, given the Roman Emperor was and is (on paper) formally acclaimed by the senate, that sort of model wouldn’t actually require any fundamental changes other than for the senate to have actual power and a willingness to exercise it.
 
Last edited:
I am interested with the idea of an imperial crowned republic presidential monarchism system that may develop. An elected crowned imperial autocrat for life but with theoretical absolute powers being made limited by a strong Senate, the bureaucracy and popular assemblies at the bottom. The imperial autocrat may play some role in sponsoring legislation in the Senate or even do a version of "judicial review" in interpreting laws passed by the Senate and the assemblies while real executive administration is left to a combination of imperial bureaucrats and the Senate. But no dynastic succession anymore and the Senate can theoretically threaten the Crown by practically depriving it of real power via some process that becomes a legislative coup d'etat in practice without disrupting the normal functioning of government. Something like that.

It's a long evolution of a form of constitutional parliamentarism that only makes sense for Rhomania.

Something like how the governance of the People's Republic of China in real practice is something that always confuse Westerners (not that I am saying that China's democratic or anything like that).
 
Last edited:
An elective monarchy reeks to me of the Holy Roman Empire and seems to defeat the purpose of an autocrat. If they ultimately derive their authority from popular election, and therefore investment, rather than some external force like bloodline, god, or the military then why bother with them at all? Invariably the monarchs will pick sides in parties/factions and you'll get a one-party state dictatorship with some trappings of monarchy but no actual monarchy since the first thing the losers will do is try to kill the elected 'for life' leader and the first thing the winners will do is destroy their competition. Just like the current war hawk government is doing and just like the HRE factions did be it the Guelphs and Ghibellines, the Catholics and Protestants, or the Austrians and Prussians. The HRE is extreme of course but this factionalism will arise in such a system and so it requires some sort of in built connective factor like shared cultural identity in nationalism, ideological unity, religion, or a restricted electoral franchise (easier to get one class of people to agree on something than all social classes). Such mechanisms would not stop factionalism entirely since humans always disagree but can mitigate their destructive tendencies and keep a large state unified especially in a situation of autocracy since you cannot placate local discontent with the bestowal of autonomy in the same way a federation type system or ceremonial monarch would.
 
I am interested with the idea of an imperial crowned republic presidential monarchism system that may develop. An elected crowned imperial autocrat for life but with theoretical absolute powers being made limited by a strong Senate, the bureaucracy and popular assemblies at the bottom. The imperial autocrat may play some role in sponsoring legislation in the Senate or even do a version of "judicial review" in interpreting laws passed by the Senate and the assemblies while real executive administration is left to a combination of imperial bureaucrats and the Senate. But no dynastic succession anymore and the Senate can theoretically threaten the Crown by practically depriving it of real power via some process that becomes a legislative coup d'etat in practice without disrupting the normal functioning of government. Something like that.

It's a long evolution of a form of constitutional parliamentarism that only makes sense for Rhomania.

Something like how the governance of the People's Republic of China in real practice is something that always confuse Westerners (not that I am saying that China's democratic or anything like that).
Then there's no point in this ttl. The empire of the Romans from this ttl is supposed to be where autocrats and unelected councils had real authority. Not beholden to this "democratic/republican" govt you speak off. There's no point in just following or believing that all states will inevitably be some form of democracy.

For Christ sake our history is one made of thousand years of autocracy. Democracy is just a recent thing, not even a thousand years yet. A minority will inevitably be always in charge of state governance, that's the truth of it.
 
An elective monarchy reeks to me of the Holy Roman Empire and seems to defeat the purpose of an autocrat. If they ultimately derive their authority from popular election, and therefore investment, rather than some external force like bloodline, god, or the military then why bother with them at all? Invariably the monarchs will pick sides in parties/factions and you'll get a one-party state dictatorship with some trappings of monarchy but no actual monarchy since the first thing the losers will do is try to kill the elected 'for life' leader and the first thing the winners will do is destroy their competition. Just like the current war hawk government is doing and just like the HRE factions did be it the Guelphs and Ghibellines, the Catholics and Protestants, or the Austrians and Prussians. The HRE is extreme of course but this factionalism will arise in such a system and so it requires some sort of in built connective factor like shared cultural identity in nationalism, ideological unity, religion, or a restricted electoral franchise (easier to get one class of people to agree on something than all social classes). Such mechanisms would not stop factionalism entirely since humans always disagree but can mitigate their destructive tendencies and keep a large state unified especially in a situation of autocracy since you cannot placate local discontent with the bestowal of autonomy in the same way a federation type system or ceremonial monarch would.
You certainly wouldn't have a liberal democratic regime under an "elected" autocrat. At most it would, as you said, be a one-party oligarchy with an emperor selected by some quasi-politburo, though B444 is already alluding to the idea of curbing the autocratic power of the Imperial office. As far as the question of why have a monarchy at all in such a case, inertia and tradition can help a lot as long as the system isn't fatally broken. There's some very blatant deficiencies in the political systems of the Anglosphere countries, such as the UK's lack of a formally codified constitution, or the Lifetime Appointment of Supreme Court justices in the US. So long as whatever "imperial crowned republic presidential monarchism" exists doesn't seriously impede governance, inertia and tradition can keep it around.

There'd also be a certain irony in an Empire that began as a monarchy guised in the forms and customs of a republic ending up as a republic with the aesthetics of a monarchy.

Then there's no point in this ttl. The empire of the Romans from this ttl is supposed to be where autocrats and unelected councils had real authority. Not beholden to this "democratic/republican" govt you speak off. There's no point in just following or believing that all states will inevitably be some form of democracy.

For Christ sake our history is one made of thousand years of autocracy. Democracy is just a recent thing, not even a thousand years yet. A minority will inevitably be always in charge of state governance, that's the truth of it.

Leaving aside the questions about the extent to which popular will actually governs in democracies, the point I was making was about hereditary heads of state holding significant political power. That's fallen out of favor even in most modern autocracies, and while you can argue that was a historical coincidence that arose from the status of the Soviet Union as the preeminent alternative to 20th century liberal democracy, I don't really see it. Political dynasties continue to exist under non-hereditary systems of succession, and there's so many situations where having a head of state chosen from a single arbitrary family can be a liability if that figure holds actual power, and post enlightenment there's no way to rationally justify it beyond tradition.
 
I don't think it's unreasonable to have a de facto hereditary system where the law is "Only the current emperor has the power to choose the next emperor, as long as his choice satisfies xy and z criteria" that I guess by modern times would have been decided by the Senate. I really don't think it's too far fetched to have a monarchy especially a Roman one that started as (even if it was lip service) just an addition to a Republican system, to have actual executive power while still being kept in check by more democratic institutions. Basically a president for life
 
Then there's no point in this ttl. The empire of the Romans from this ttl is supposed to be where autocrats and unelected councils had real authority. Not beholden to this "democratic/republican" govt you speak off. There's no point in just following or believing that all states will inevitably be some form of democracy.

For Christ sake our history is one made of thousand years of autocracy. Democracy is just a recent thing, not even a thousand years yet. A minority will inevitably be always in charge of state governance, that's the truth of it.

I hereby disagree with this connotation that "democracy is just a recent thing", with associated connotation that democracy is also a "Western thing that's been spread throughout the barbarian rest of the world". So, I don't know what you are doing with this oligarchical iron rule kind of thinking. But I digress since this is not polchat.

Not to mention your assertion that Rhomania is supposed to be this perpetual absolute autocracy till modern times kind of thing and it being the point of this timeline. You've just been contradicted by the OP a few posts ago. That's your opinion but I don't think it's something that holds sway here.

I think it's inevitable that Rhomania is going to experiment and end up with some form of a mixed government of absolute monarchy, republicanism, de facto popular sovereignty and democracy in some way, shape or form and with built-in checks and balances. It's just a matter of what form it will take. Our dear OP, after all, seems to have no taste in your advocacy of perpetual autocrat minoritarian rule so it's your loss.

I am simply imagining what that mixed government may look like but it doesn't have to be that model that I imagined. I am just simply sure that in some way, shape or form that Rhomania in the future is going to have a mixed model and try to make sense of how it may look like.

That's all.

I like the idea of keeping the aesthetics of absolute monarchy while having a democratic republic in practice. That could be another out of this world kind of thing.
Frankly, it can come up in many forms and I don't care how it is going to look like as an end product, I am just sure that it's going to happen.
 
Last edited:
I hereby disagree with this connotation that "democracy is just a recent thing", with associated connotation that democracy is also a "Western thing that's been spread throughout the barbarian rest of the world". So, I don't know what you are doing with this oligarchical iron rule kind of thinking. But I digress since this is not polchat.

Not to mention your assertion that Rhomania is supposed to be this perpetual absolute autocracy till modern times kind of thing and it being the point of this timeline. You've just been contradicted by the OP a few posts ago. That's your opinion but I don't think it's something that holds sway here.

I think it's inevitable that Rhomania is going to experiment and end up with some form of a mixed government of absolute monarchy, republicanism, de facto popular sovereignty and democracy in some way, shape or form and with built-in checks and balances. It's just a matter of what form it will take. Our dear OP, after all, seems to have no taste in your advocacy of perpetual autocrat minoritarian rule so it's your loss.

I am simply imagining what that mixed government may look like but it doesn't have to be that model that I imagined. I am just simply sure that in some way, shape or form that Rhomania in the future is going to have a mixed model and try to make sense of how it may look like.

That's all.

I like the idea of keeping the aesthetics of absolute monarchy while having a democratic republic in practice. That could be another out of this world kind of thing.
Frankly, it can come up in many forms and I don't care how it is going to look like as an end product, I am just sure that it's going to happen.
Don't really have a problem with democracy as it always will exist in some form or another, when I'm talking about democracy it's the democratic governments that rose from during the 1900's to modern time. The absolute vast majority of the world became democratic/republican type countries.

It's quite proven by now that it isn't always the best form of government for other countries. The empire of the Romans has a very long rich tradition, history and values that I'm pretty sure those things will survive to it's modern ttl. There's no need for me to believe that the Romans of this ttl will succumb or radically change their entire form of government that easily.

Some democratic reform will be necessary, but frankly speaking the Romans are already ahead in some cases. They have 2000 plus years of experience, so they should know better what a mob rule or a band of super rich oligarchs controlling the country means.

They didn't survive by being stupid, I doubt the Romans would just say no/off an emperor when it's a bastion of order and strength of empire.
 
Top