Calling All Roman History Buffs: Writing a Realistic Rome-Wank

Rome-wank scenarios are...

  • Overdone

    Votes: 14 6.1%
  • Really overdone

    Votes: 7 3.0%
  • Extremely overdone

    Votes: 25 10.8%
  • Interesting to think about and a well of possibilities for future writing

    Votes: 171 74.0%
  • Dumb AND overdone

    Votes: 14 6.1%

  • Total voters
    231

Toraach

Banned
textbook style
I think that the best result is to mix both styles. Some things look better in a textbook style, which is usually more clear, some things for stylisation look better in ancient style.

I want you to consider some ideas. I think that it is better if Augustus live longer, preferably to at least 5AD, but for him longer is better. That is for the stability of the power. Just more people who are in high positions are guys who have had Augustus around all their lives, at least their adult lives, even for someone born in 44BC, or 50BC Augustus have been known in politics for as long as they could remember. OTL Augustus outlived all others who could remember that there was some "free republic" (well, I mean pre-49 BC, later there were just wars). But his early death as in your story gives us a succesion problem, what to do with Gaius and Lucius. Well you included them in your story, but I think that even in 3BC Augustus would prefered them as his own blood over Drusus, but still they are very young so you might be right.. Also laws about succesion of the princeps. I think they are unplausible here. Augustus is still alive, and one of the strenghts of his political system was how vague it was. And I don't think that living Augustus would allow to put princeps under some laws, which constrict his free of decision. The Romans were very flexible in terms of political systems, laws etc. There weren't a concept of rigid constitution, which allows or bans certain solutions. Example the Praetorian Prefect was an equestrian post, but Vespasian didn't have any problems with apointing his own son as the prefect. I mean roman succesion is a diffrent matter than the cardinal laws of the French Kingdom under the Kapetians (which also were a result of the long revoluton, in which the most helpful occurence was that from Hugo Capet to Philip the Fair, every king had the surviving son, who became the king after the father).

Also the matter of this "self goverment" in Panonia. It is very vague description. What do you mean by it? Because de facto the Roman Empire was self governing on the local level. The Emperor had his office, and provincial governors, but at the basic level municipia, colonies, peregrini cities, tribes, folks, etc were leave alone and governing themselves as they wish, with following some basic laws and paying taxes. In the East even old federal bodies, like the Lycian League or the Achaean League survived long into the principate. But those federal entites were allowed to exist, because their ancient tradition, because usually the Romans were against creating any provincial bodies which allowed to political contact between subjugated polites on horizontal level, a fear of uprisings. The provincial council of koina of the later eras, were a diffrent matter. Their power was limited and in pacified provinces, they were the only bodies allowed by romans to voice some collective opinnions and pledges of provincial people, like petitioning to the emperor and such. I don't think that anything like that could exists in recently conquered Panonia, because the fear of uprisings. Because of course the real local power was still in hands of local elites from tribes, or celtic opidia, of course local potentates were exchanged into those loyal to Rome.
 
May as well post both, the textbook style was quick and easy to write, so the bulk of my writing will be th historian style anyways
I think that the best result is to mix both styles. Some things look better in a textbook style, which is usually more clear, some things for stylisation look better in ancient style.

I want you to consider some ideas.

I'm open to rewriting it and having Augustus live longer, the problem I ran into when I was writing is that IOTL he doesn't actually do a ton as princeps after 7 BCE, besides enforcing his adultery reforms (and banishing his daughter which I wanted to avoid, which is why I picked 3 BCE, she was banished in 2 BCE). I can do a bit more research if people think a longer reign for Augustus is absolutely necessary, but I'd hate to force him into the background, and I'm not sure if I can write much more content for him. Plus I'd have to read an ungodly amount of Suetonius, who is not the easiest to read from haha.

Secondarily, Drusus' "succession law" is far from a concrete thing, as is explained in the longer historian-style full text. Basically, he prompts the senate to pass a law giving automatic tribunician authority to any descendant of Augustus that is elected to public office, which I think is a step in the right direction, while staying within the precedents set by Augustus. It's not an outright law giving a direct succession mechanism, that will have to wait.

As with Gaius and Lucius, I have plans for them. I'd hate to spoil too much, but Gaius won't be an issue, leaving Lucius and Germanicus to either become co-emperors, or for Lucius to have a very brief reign. For realism purposes, not every emperor can be an amazing administrator with a forty year reign, and I still need to have sub-par emperors with short reigns.

To address "self-government in Pannonia", I'll admit its a vague phrase that doesn't fit as well with the narrative, and its explained a bit better in the historian-style section of the narrative (which is why I prefer that version, even if its waaaay longer). It basically just consists of Domitius devolving the power to collect taxes to the elites of Pannonia, but since its a relatively poor region without much gold or silver, Domitius' subordinates create a standardized list of taxable products (similar to the diocletian reforms IOTL) and levy taxes on those, making the tax process less arbitrary (which was a perennial source of revolts over the life of the empire, especially in Egypt) and more stable. This, coupled with the abolition of tax farming by Augustus during this period, could confer some kind of financial stability and help slow the debasement of currency (which will become an issue in around 2 centuries if nothing is done early on)

EDIT: If Augustus dies before either Gaius or Lucius' consulships (in 1 and 4 CE respectively), I don't think there would necessarily be an issue with Augustus preferring them in the succession, since neither of them were even 20 years old yet
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Pannonia, has the Great Illyrian Revolt been butterflied?

I plan on having some sort of major revolt in Illyria, although I might change the timing so it happens a bit earlier, instead of at the same time as a major Germanic revolt (which I might butterfly away or not, I haven't decided what I'm going to do with Arminius yet).
 
I want you to consider some ideas. I think that it is better if Augustus live longer, preferably to at least 5AD, but for him longer is better. That is for the stability of the power. Just more people who are in high positions are guys who have had Augustus around all their lives, at least their adult lives, even for someone born in 44BC, or 50BC Augustus have been known in politics for as long as they could remember. OTL Augustus outlived all others who could remember that there was some "free republic" (well, I mean pre-49 BC, later there were just wars).

One last question question, is there any particular reason you picked 5 CE for the upper limit on Augustus' premature death? Is it because IOTL, Gaius and Lucius were both dead by 4 CE, or did you have something else in mind?
 
Last edited:

Toraach

Banned
One last question question, is there any particular reason you picked 5 CE for the upper limit on Augustus' premature death? Is it because IOTL, Gaius and Lucius were both dead by 4 BCE, or did you have something else in mind?
Because G&L. For my other reasons for his longevity I have explained already, about that his autocracy becoming norm for new generations, instead of something new.

For the selfgoverning. You just wrote about the thing how Romans did in the OTL, with a small adition of diffrent taxation. But I don't know if this tax system is possible on such not well developed area, where there is a lack of aparatus to enforce that.

For co-emperors, it is good that you think about this thing, and bad emperors. I hope for Germanicus, and that his kids are going to be also descendants of Augustus, which is important.
 
Because G&L. For my other reasons for his longevity I have explained already, about that his autocracy becoming norm for new generations, instead of something new.

For the selfgoverning. You just wrote about the thing how Romans did in the OTL, with a small adition of diffrent taxation. But I don't know if this tax system is possible on such not well developed area, where there is a lack of aparatus to enforce that.

Fair enough. To give Augustus something to do, I'll have him enact the tax/administrative reforms in Hispania or Gaul, rather than Domitius in Pannonia. It'll give him something to do in the latter parts of his reign. I've decided he needs to survive to at least 4 CE, because that's the year that he arranged for Germanicus to marry Agrippina, the elder daughter of Julia and Agrippa, which is really the only thing that would put him in line for the throne, even if his father Drusus was made the primary heir.

I'll make the first official post after I finish these changes, probably some time in the next week, since I'll have to write another 6-7 years of content to get to Augustus' death.
 

Redcoat

Banned
People keep talking about the Byzantine TL's on this site, but I've seen none tbh. Any good Byzantine wanks here?
 
People keep talking about the Byzantine TL's on this site, but I've seen none tbh. Any good Byzantine wanks here?

No idea, I'd go to the wikia they've got linked somewhere on the homepage, there's a compilation of threads somewhere on that site that I saw forever ago
 
My first thought on the initial post is do not assume Gibbon gives you an accurate picture of the Roman Empire!
 
A possible argument against this proposal is that a development and centralisation of state structures in an independent Britannia may eventually lead to the formation of a regional power that can cause trouble for Rome. I have some doubts as to that. First of all, if Rome never conquers the island, that means substantially less (direct) contact with Rome, and thus less of an impetus to centralise and develop state structures. In OTL, it was typically the contact with Rome (either by fighting the Empire or by being vassalised by it) that sparked such processes. Furthermore, the Romans would simply use the same diplomatic strategy they used in Germania in OTL: play local rulers off each other, distribute bribes, maintain trading relations (which would become as integral to the British economy as to the Romans), and intervene militarily when necessary. This is a far better (and cheaper) situation than having to permanently station multiple legions there— and it maintains most of OTL's economic benefits via trade. Such a strategy is hardly fool-proof, so an occasional punitive expedition to enforce Roman interests and ensure the compliance of local rulers should be expected. Well, dealing with some troublesome Celtic rulers across the sea from time to time is still far cheaper than peanently stationing Britannia with more troops than could reasonably be justified.

I will respond at some point in the near future to push back on the idea of Britain being a net loss, but I will note that every Roman border territory saw state development inspired by Rome. paying off local rules and distributing bribes didn't stop the Goths from being a problem.

In fact, let me propose an alternate scenario. During the *Third Century Crisis, a Roman-influenced, Christian king from England invades Gaul and the Rhineland. His name... Artorīgos. The Romans will call him Artorius, and the rest is (Alternate) History.

pqyite[A Roman force, even a mere auxiliary force, is going to be considerably more expansive— and thus more threatening to any would-be raider. The Vikings were a threat because their victims were relatively weak. Raiders trying to take on the Roman Empire will find that they are the weak ones in this particular situation.[/quote]

If the Romans were so capable of dealing with raiders, how come you had the massive fortifications along the Saxon Shore? I don't know if we can say those fortifications worked, but they suggest defeating the raiders required a lot more than just a fleet showing up.

You don't need to be able to predict the future to understand what a strategically sound border looks like. Throughout their history, the Romans repeatedly demonstrated that they understood this. A conquest of Germania up to the Elbe is not something that made zero sense. Indeed, clear-thinking military minds repeatedly argued in favour of it.

Do you have a cite for this? August seemed to expand everywhere he could; south of Egypt, into Arabia Felix, etc.

[qquote]The main advantage here is that having those areas under control gives Rome a strong strategic buffer on the northern periphery. Germania beyond the Elbe now consists of petty vassalised tribes who can't realistically grow into a threat.[/quote]

Why can't they become a threat, just like the alemanni became a threat? What evidence is there that the Roman empire would think about this in the context of "fall back lines" along major rivers?


Mesopotamia was incredibly wealthy. In fact, if retained, it would easily be the wealthiest region of the entire Roman Empire... by far. It was the wealthiest region of the Parthian Empire as well. If properly integrated, it will at once become the single greatest benefit to the Roman treasury. Yes, conquering and permanently defending the region is going to be expensive. But there is no way that any even vaguely realistic cost you can care to set as the "price tag" for all this can come even close to matching the huge profits. Economically speaking (obviously not politically), you could basically give up everything west of the Adriatic, including Rome itself, in exchange for Mesopotamia... and you'd benefit from that deal. (Again, economically speaking. The socio-political ramifications are vastly different.)

How does Rome keep this territory? Trajan's conquests were not permanent, and he was not the only Roman to invade and sack Mesopotamian cities. And when the Romans trashed the Parthians enough to bring them down, the replacements, the Sassanids, were an even bigger threat!

Given these factors, could the Parthians (or any of their ATL successors) retake Mesopotamia? It has been argued that the manpower base of Persian armies didn't rely on Mesopotamia. The Persian cavalry armies came from the steppe and the highlands. Even without Mesopotamian wealth, might a poorer but martially powerful steppe empire then succeed in driving back the Romans? I have my doubts about that idea. The simple fact is that "it's the economy, stupid!" (As always.) The cavalry armies may not be recruited from Mesopotamia, but historically, they were fed and paid for by Mesopotamia.

A small band of nomadic archers seizing a fertile floodplain? It is to laugh, is it not?

Which Empire is going to leave a general with such a large army in the east?

Basically, Rome had a trade balance problem. Gold flowed to Persia, to India, to China... and never came back. Whatever we may say about a trade balance issue in the modern age of fiduciary currency, in the days that gold was money, it presented a real danger. There are many theories as to the "decline and fall" of the Roman Empire. I personally think that the outflow of gold was a major cause. The gold supply dwindled, currency got debased, prices inflated as a result, an inflationary cycle got started, etc. Eventually, this led to dire straits, economically speaking. Taxes got raised to such a level that many common people could not bear the burden (the problem being that taxes had to be paid to the government in actual gold, while the Emperors issued increasingly debased coin).

Which economic historians now believe that the specie outflow destroyed the empire? Serious question.
 
Top