Challenge: Save the Roman Empire, tame it's militarism

Simple premise, while yes there were a lot of things wrong with the Roman empire the cultural dominance of the militarism and the physical military dominance within the state were one of the biggest aggravates and incentives for needless conquest, civil wars, slavery, and so on... Things that weakened the Roman empire, WRE, and ERE.

This wasn't always the case (although it seems to be since Rome pretty much fought from it's inception). The challenge would be for 3 distinct Roman empires:

  • Republican times:
  • Imperial times (50BCE-200ACE):
  • Late Roman times (say 200ACE-300ACE?):
 
Last edited:

OS fan

Banned
Sure, Rome was militarist. But if they weren't: How do you plan to prevent their state being conquered by a more warlike one?
 
Also, the very people who would be in a position to "tame it" are the people who are gaining power by this - both legitimately (how else did one gain political power in Rome?) and otherwise (the numerous wannabe usurpers).

Making political power within Rome less tied to one's military achievements might be possible, but you'd need some other basis - something equally appealing. Good luck.
 
The "weakened Roman Empire" lasted from circa 50 CE to 350 CE with significant successor states lasting until 1200 CE. Compare this with the competition (British Empire, American hegemony, Russia / USSR / Russia) and these strong states have not even made the first half millenium yet.

As a means for administering a multi-cultural multi-ethnic state the God-Emperor proved as efficient as any other model (Rome, China, Egypt)
 
Challenge: Save the Roman Empire, tame it's militarism

No can do. Rome was it's militarism. Without it, they would have just been another boring, partial Greekified, Italic tribe and a forgotten historic footnote.

Nice shiny, happy civilisations don't get back up from something like Cannae, dust themselves off and keep fighting.

Nice shiny, happy civilisations don't invent cultural 'practices' like the Decimus.
 
The "weakened Roman Empire" lasted from circa 50 CE to 350 CE with significant successor states lasting until 1200 CE. Compare this with the competition (British Empire, American hegemony, Russia / USSR / Russia) and these strong states have not even made the first half millenium yet.

As a means for administering a multi-cultural multi-ethnic state the God-Emperor proved as efficient as any other model (Rome, China, Egypt)

I note that Iran is not listed despite being a far better example than Egypt (of administering a multicultural multiethnic state).

As for the God-Emperor model working . . . I also note that the continuation in the East/successor state in the East did so by moving past the limits of its past.
 
I'm pretty sure eliminating the only competition in the western mediterannean and establishing a monopolistic trading empire also played a role.

Rome was not a trading Empire- it had no-one serious to trade with, given trade with Iran was so limited by war. I've seen estimates that agriculture made up somewhere from 90-95% of the economy, and agriculture is based on slavery.

As for the God-Emperor model working . . . I also note that the continuation in the East/successor state in the East did so by moving past the limits of its past.

True, but the difference between a deified Claudius and God's deputy Justinian is only one of degree. I think that Christian Emperors were far more clearly divine autocrats than was any Princeps, regardless of any actual deification.
 
I note that Iran is not listed despite being a far better example than Egypt (of administering a multicultural multiethnic state).

As for the God-Emperor model working . . . I also note that the continuation in the East/successor state in the East did so by moving past the limits of its past.

Iranian empires were not as long lived (although the Sassanids would give current empires a run for their money at more than 400 years)

There really was little difference to the way most Emperors presented themselves when alive in the Western or Eastern empires. Most Western emperors considered themselves divine but not gods. Eastern emperors were blessed by God. When respected Byzantine Emperors were canonised. When respected Western Emperors were deified in a polytheistic pantheon.

Not really alot of difference apart from some mad Western Emperors who demanded godhood when alive
 
Rome was not a trading Empire- it had no-one serious to trade with, given trade with Iran was so limited by war. I've seen estimates that agriculture made up somewhere from 90-95% of the economy, and agriculture is based on slavery.

Although I've heard that Rome's trade with India milked Roman specie coffers dry.
 
Yes yes I'm aware of the accomplishments of the Roman military system, which is why I didn't ask for the militarism to be tamed at it's inception. A change in Roman culture at 100 CE would be more or less what OTL's boundaries. I'm not saying no legions or no wars; just wars for profit, reformed legionary payments to reform loyalty. Essentially rewire the system against needing constant conquests for sustenance and loyalty to generals, there's no reason this can't exist alongside Roman military excellence.
 
Rome was not a trading Empire- it had no-one serious to trade with, given trade with Iran was so limited by war. I've seen estimates that agriculture made up somewhere from 90-95% of the economy, and agriculture is based on slavery.
'til at least Justinian II, I think.

True, but the difference between a deified Claudius and God's deputy Justinian is only one of degree. I think that Christian Emperors were far more clearly divine autocrats than was any Princeps, regardless of any actual deification.

Autocrats, certainly, divine, I'm not sure.

The main thing I can think of is that New Rome managed to develop alternate channels for men of ambition than the army. Old Rome, where political power requires military glory (I'm reasonably sure military success was a perquisite to even hold some of the offices of the republic), is not well set up to tame militarism.

Derek Pullem: Neither was the Roman Empire if you consider it lasting only until 350 AD, and China I'm not sure how you're defining length here.

And very few Byzantine emperors were canonized. The only one I can think of off the top of my head was John III. (if John IV was, I note that he barely counts as having been an emperor).

Unconsensual: But is there a way that the people who have an interest in the existing system will decide to change it to serve their interests less well?

It took until Rome had morphed into that some-people-say-it-isn't-Rome days for Byzantium to beat it into submission.
 
Top