Could the Late Roman Empire have thrived as an 'Empire of Trust'

[DominusNovus]

If you are unfamiliar with the term, an 'empire of trust' is an idea coin by the historian Thomas Madden, to describe ad hoc empires built by the Roman Republic and the United States. Essentially, these are empires built by accident, through a web of alliances built by a militarily hegemonic but non-expansionist state that were sought simply to protect their homeland and allies, rather than expande their territory. Madden's presentation of this idea strays a bit too far into apologism, but the basic idea is sound, and lets accept the premise for the sake of discussion, and not worry about the flaws in his theory (though that would be a good discussion for another time).

Could the late Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire have done the same thing? I'm not referring to vassalizing the post-Roman states, demanding tribute, but forming genuine alliances of de jure equals with them, that eventually would entangle those states back into the Roman state?

Problems with this range from the relative power of the post-Roman states to the Empire - though that didn't stop the Republic from doing just this to Egypt - to the contemporary Roman's opposition to the idea that the barbarians should be treated in such terms.

Advantages to this approach are that the Late Empire has many more tools at its disposal to draw allies into their orbit than the Republic had. Basically, the Republic had two tools: They were militarily dominant, and regarded as trustworthy allies. Meanwhile, the Late Empire (I'm counting the east in this formulation) usually had the military advantage (again, when you count the east), but also had a vast economic advantage (again, counting the east), as well as cultural and religious advantages (with or without the east).

 

[RyuDrago]

In short, you are suggesting the Empire should have turned into a federation in order to survive...

 

[samcster94]

In short, you are suggesting the Empire should have turned into a federation in order to survive...

Well, it did split itself in two and was once ruled by four dudes called the Tetrarchy in a junta.

 

[PhilippeO]

but religion become far more important issue 6th century onwards. Byzantine is surrounded by Apostolic Armenian, Musl8m Arab Turks Egypt, and Catholic Italy in West. Trust is difficult to build when rel8gious difference is important issue.

it had very limited choice of ally. Rus Bulgars Pecheneg all in North. they couldn't base national diplomatic policy on some doctrine that only applicable in one direction.

 

[Skallagrim]

Well, it did split itself in two and was once ruled by four dudes called the Tetrarchy in a junta.

Yes, but a major problem is that the Roman mindset didn't really account for federalism. When there were two emperors, each one ruled the whole empire, and had the right to veto any decision by his counterpart. The subsidiarity of the republican model wasn't based on some sort of political decentralist notion, but on the distinction between Rome and its citizenry on one hand, and tributary peoples on the other hand. That's the basis of the very word 'federation': foedus, which means "treaty." The foederati were treaty-bound client peoples.


The key question here is: how do the Romans come up with the idea of federalism? Turning your citizenry into subdivided parts that are basically treated the way treaty-bound vassals are treated is not going to go over well. The idea needs to have some kind of basis on which to develop. Something that inspires the Romans to change their political mindset in that direction. I can't imagine what that might be.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I'd say that at least culturally, the Byzantine Empire certainly did this. Its why Russia is Orthodox after all! (I apologise if you don't consider the Byzantine Empire within the scope of the question). As a result, I think it is perfectly possible, with the right amount of pomp, bombast, trade and security (for all).

I'd be comfortable to argue this would be a likely direction of travel if Justinian didn't try to restore the West to Roman control - instead following the model you put forward above. Out of character for Justinian as we knew him, but if he decided that focusing on Persia, and (as he could see it) Ending the Eternal War and crushing Khosrau (no easy deed), and breaking Persia up into smaller states allied with Constantinople (perhaps along the old Satrapy lines? Whatever makes sense I guess).

This would lead to the Roman Empire forming an Empire of Trust across the Mediterranean, and former Persia. A very good legacy, with much better consequences for the Roman Empire. Ignoring the costs of fighting the Eternal War, this prevents the Empire Proper from being overstretched in Italy, Africa, Spain, and the Mesopotamian border, leading to the interesting position of being able to maintain a free hand to not only repeat the process in Arabia, or lacking that - and butterflies don't prevent it - making it near-impossible for the Caliphate to expand out of Arabia - and preventing the killer blow to an Empire of Trust (at least in the West) - Egypt. (For context, Mesopotamia would be a killer for an Empire of Trust in the East, and sadly both are quite vulnerable to an invasion from Arabia).

It may not be able to culturally subsume Persia (in fact, this might lead to an intermingling of Roman, Germanic and Persian cultures for a Modern Europe), but the 'Western Empire' would certainly be. An interesting side effect of all of this is that assuming the trust holds, you have an Empire of Trust larger than China, with obscenely long northern borders with Steppe peoples - and may well focus on military strategy to that end. Could an alt-Genghis Khan emerge and face this Empire of Trust and win? I... don't know.

 

[DominusNovus]

I think the notion of calling this 'federalism' is overselling the concept.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

I'd go into why the U.S. isn't an empire but that would cause all sorts of arguments, anyway to answer you I don't believe it to be possible due to the fact of why Rome disintegrated. Rome long before it fell ceased to be 'Roman' in the same sense it was in 1 AD. Religious strife was but one factor of its fall, compounded with federoties rising up neigh constantly, treason and backstabbing becoming so normal that we call it byzantine politics, and a tirade of other difficulties to overcome. Romans (born in the city of) had a superiority complex of anyone Roman (born outside the city of) and it got worse from there. Cultural differences, class differences, religious differences, and the guys on top looking down on everyone else. It's not a system conducive to a set up of nominally independent interconnected allies, most especially whence one remembers when Rome conquered, they conquered. Romans in 409 AD had the same contempt for 'barbarians' and 'provincials' that Romans under Trajan did...

 

[Skallagrim]

I think the notion of calling this 'federalism' is overselling the concept.

It's not modern federalism, but the Romans would definitely think of it in terms of treaty relations, i.e. what they would understand to be 'federal' relations. You speak of forming genuine alliances of de jure equals with various post-Roman states, which would be seen (not inaccurately) as semi-barbarian or fully barbarian states, contrasted with the Roman civitas. You mention - and with good reason - the contemporary Romans' opposition to the idea that the barbarians should be treated in such terms (meaning terms of equality to the civitas).

The implication of a reformed 'Roman federalism' that is made to be at least a fair bit more like modern (that is, basis-of-equality) federalism would automatically be that either barbarians are elevated to be equal to citizens, or that citizens are lowered to be equal to barbarians. Both notions will surely go down like a lead balloon.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

It's not modern federalism, but the Romans would definitely think of it in terms of treaty relations, i.e. what they would understand to be 'federal' relations. You speak of forming genuine alliances of de jure equals with various post-Roman states, which would be seen (not inaccurately) as semi-barbarian or fully barbarian states, contrasted with the Roman civitas. You mention - and with good reason - the contemporary Romans' opposition to the idea that the barbarians should be treated in such terms (meaning terms of equality to the civitas).

The implication of a reformed 'Roman federalism' that is made to be at least a fair bit more like modern (that is, basis-of-equality) federalism would automatically be that either barbarians are elevated to be equal to citizens, or that citizens are lowered to be equal to barbarians. Both notions will surely go down like a lead balloon.

I think that would depend on the treaty itself. It might be further than a perfect alliance - but if it included terms to ensure that Romans living in the territory of X would be tried by a Roman court (or a Roman court established within the territory of X), or something to that effect - it portrays the treaty as an alliance between the ruling bodies, rather than establishing equality between Romans and Barbarians.

I'm not sure if that is even needed, alliances are agreements between states. Even now I don't have the same rights in another country as I do in my own. Hence why people run to embassies to escape jurisdiction, or get deported. As a result, I think your last paragraph runs away from reality into a worst case scenario. It just doesn't ring true, even today. Citizens of NATO members don't have the same rights in different countries. I don't see why in the Late Roman period, that they'd go further than nowadays.

 

[Skallagrim]

I think that would depend on the treaty itself. It might be further than a perfect alliance - but if it included terms to ensure that Romans living in the territory of X would be tried by a Roman court (or a Roman court established within the territory of X), or something to that effect - it portrays the treaty as an alliance between the ruling bodies, rather than establishing equality between Romans and Barbarians.

I'm not sure if that is even needed, alliances are agreements between states. Even now I don't have the same rights in another country as I do in my own. Hence why people run to embassies to escape jurisdiction, or get deported. As a result, I think your last paragraph runs away from reality into a worst case scenario. It just doesn't ring true, even today. Citizens of NATO members don't have the same rights in different countries. I don't see why in the Late Roman period, that they'd go further than nowadays.

The Roman Empire is not NATO. The modern mindset of basic equality is just that: modern. Recent. Completely anachronistic when projected onto any moment before modernity, and asroundingly out of place in the ancient world. Rome had not had equals; had not ever seen any barbarian power as an equal. To accept that such a thing could exist would be... well, let us say highly unusual.

 

[DominusNovus]

I'd go into why the U.S. isn't an empire but that would cause all sorts of arguments, anyway to answer you I don't believe it to be possible due to the fact of why Rome disintegrated. Rome long before it fell ceased to be 'Roman' in the same sense it was in 1 AD. Religious strife was but one factor of its fall, compounded with federoties rising up neigh constantly, treason and backstabbing becoming so normal that we call it byzantine politics, and a tirade of other difficulties to overcome. Romans (born in the city of) had a superiority complex of anyone Roman (born outside the city of) and it got worse from there. Cultural differences, class differences, religious differences, and the guys on top looking down on everyone else. It's not a system conducive to a set up of nominally independent interconnected allies, most especially whence one remembers when Rome conquered, they conquered. Romans in 409 AD had the same contempt for 'barbarians' and 'provincials' that Romans under Trajan did...

I'd suggest that you read a synopsis of Madden's work; it addresses several of your points.

 

[DominusNovus]

The Roman Empire is not NATO. The modern mindset of basic equality is just that: modern. Recent. Completely anachronistic when projected onto any moment before modernity, and asroundingly out of place in the ancient world. Rome had not had equals; had not ever seen any barbarian power as an equal. To accept that such a thing could exist would be... well, let us say highly unusual.

Would you contend that the non-US members of NATO are equal to the US, in de facto terms, regardless of the de jure arrangements?

 

[Skallagrim]

Would you contend that the non-US members of NATO are equal to the US, in de facto terms, regardless of the de jure arrangements?

I do not contend that. I contend that directly comparing the Roman Empire to NATO - and thus, implicitly, equating the wider worlds and cultural mindsets in which those two respectively exist - is so patently absurd as to be ludicrous.

 

[DominusNovus]

I do not contend that. I contend that directly comparing the Roman Empire to NATO - and thus, implicitly, equating the wider worlds and cultural mindsets in which those two respectively exist - is so patently absurd as to be ludicrous.

There's the problem. There is nothing about comparing the two institutions - NATO and the Roman Empire - that implicitly equates their wider worlds and cultural mindsets. You can observe many similarities between the two institutions (most notably, that both grew largely on the advantages of being allied with a a hegemonic power) without equating everything else.

 

[Skallagrim]

There's the problem. There is nothing about comparing the two institutions - NATO and the Roman Empire - that implicitly equates their wider worlds and cultural mindsets. You can observe many similarities between the two institutions (most notably, that both grew largely on the advantages of being allied with a a hegemonic power) without equating everything else.

I was replying to @RogueTraderEnthusiast, who literally wrote:

Even now I don't have the same rights in another country as I do in my own. Hence why people run to embassies to escape jurisdiction, or get deported. As a result, I think your last paragraph runs away from reality into a worst case scenario. It just doesn't ring true, even today. Citizens of NATO members don't have the same rights in different countries. I don't see why in the Late Roman period, that they'd go further than nowadays.

...and wrote that as a justification for why Romans would be fine with an equality-of-nations kind of set-up. Note the last sentence, which I bolded. To arrive at that conclusion, you have to ignore the vast differences in the wider worlds and cultural mindsets of the two periods/institutions. Because if you don't ignore those differences, you will at once see that those differences are the reason that Romans cared about different aspects of legal relations than we do, and thus also the reason that an equality-of-nations kind of set-up is going to be difficult to get off the ground.

So, yes, the wider worlds are implicitly being equated here. And that is the problem.

And the issue that the Romans would have with an equality-of-nations kind of set-up isn't that Romans want the "same rights in another country" as they do in Rome. Nope. It's simply that Rome never recognised any power on earth as its equal. There are Roman citizens, there are treaty-bound "allies" (who are in reality vassals/clients) and there are barbarians outside the border. That's the world, and those groups are ranked in that order.

And now we come to the latter days of the (Western) Roman Empire, and areas formerly held by Rome have fallen away. There are barbarian kingdoms there, whose ruling classes have often adopted Roman culture to a nice degree, but who are still barbarians. From the Roman perspective, these areas can of course re-join the empire (barbarians and all, one assumes), and renounce any claims to independent sovereignty. That shouldn't be a problem. It'll even turn a lot of barbarians into citizens. But there will be no independent kingdoms anymore. They'll just be a part of Rome again. This is unlikely to be something those barbarian kings would want. For starters, they'd have to stop being kings...

Alternatively, they can indeed enter into some kind of alliance with Rome, which is far more likely. But that will be an alliance as the Romans see an alliance: not one of equals, that is. Perhaps, considering realities, any tribute those allies pay to Rome may well be nominal. But there will be tribute, at least on paper. Those barbarian kings will have to recognise imperial authority as higher than their own. That may, again, be symbolic. It won't be as if Rome will dictate policy within their allies' borders. But as far as procedure is concerned, lesser kings will have to kneel before the emperor and recognise that he is higher in status than they are. There will not be a situation where a post-imperial league of Roman successors arises on a basis of true equality, where some barbarian king has the same standing as the emperor, and where an inhabitant of a barbarian kingdom is seen as a true peer of a Roman citizen.

It can slowly evolve into that, of course. But that still needs some kind of basis. How, and why, would equality arise out of a mindset and a system that has been based on inequality from its conception, centuries earlier?

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I was replying to @RogueTraderEnthusiast, who literally wrote:

...and wrote that as a justification for why Romans would be fine with an equality-of-nations kind of set-up. Note the last sentence, which I bolded. To arrive at that conclusion, you have to ignore the vast differences in the wider worlds and cultural mindsets of the two periods/institutions. Because if you don't ignore those differences, you will at once see that those differences are the reason that Romans cared about different aspects of legal relations than we do, and thus also the reason that an equality-of-nations kind of set-up is going to be difficult to get off the ground.

No, I wrote that to contest your point that citizens would be made equal to barbarians. As you said the following.

It's not modern federalism, but the Romans would definitely think of it in terms of treaty relations, i.e. what they would understand to be 'federal' relations. You speak of forming genuine alliances of de jure equals with various post-Roman states, which would be seen (not inaccurately) as semi-barbarian or fully barbarian states, contrasted with the Roman civitas. You mention - and with good reason - the contemporary Romans' opposition to the idea that the barbarians should be treated in such terms (meaning terms of equality to the civitas).

The implication of a reformed 'Roman federalism' that is made to be at least a fair bit more like modern (that is, basis-of-equality) federalism would automatically be that either barbarians are elevated to be equal to citizens, or that citizens are lowered to be equal to barbarians. Both notions will surely go down like a lead balloon.

My point was that CITIZENS aren't equal now. Nor would I see the OPs scenario anything of the sort.

I am only comparing a Roman Empire of Trust to NATO as they represent a network of alliances, where NATO is easily the most egalitarian of the two and still doesn't enforce the equal treatment of citizens. It isn't the EU or an organisation like that. It is literally a treaty of mutual obligation. That isn't entirely removed from the OP.

So, yes, the wider worlds are implicitly being equated here. And that is the problem.

And the issue that the Romans would have with an equality-of-nations kind of set-up isn't that Romans want the "same rights in another country" as they do in Rome. Nope. It's simply that Rome never recognised any power on earth as its equal. There are Roman citizens, there are treaty-bound "allies" (who are in reality vassals/clients) and there are barbarians outside the border. That's the world, and those groups are ranked in that order.

And now we come to the latter days of the (Western) Roman Empire, and areas formerly held by Rome have fallen away. There are barbarian kingdoms there, whose ruling classes have often adopted Roman culture to a nice degree, but who are still barbarians. From the Roman perspective, these areas can of course re-join the empire (barbarians and all, one assumes), and renounce any claims to independent sovereignty. That shouldn't be a problem. It'll even turn a lot of barbarians into citizens. But there will be no independent kingdoms anymore. They'll just be a part of Rome again. This is unlikely to be something those barbarian kings would want. For starters, they'd have to stop being kings...

Alternatively, they can indeed enter into some kind of alliance with Rome, which is far more likely. But that will be an alliance as the Romans see an alliance: not one of equals, that is. Perhaps, considering realities, any tribute those allies pay to Rome may well be nominal. But there will be tribute, at least on paper. Those barbarian kings will have to recognise imperial authority as higher than their own. That may, again, be symbolic. It won't be as if Rome will dictate policy within their allies' borders. But as far as procedure is concerned, lesser kings will have to kneel before the emperor and recognise that he is higher in status than they are. There will not be a situation where a post-imperial league of Roman successors arises on a basis of true equality, where some barbarian king has the same standing as the emperor, and where an inhabitant of a barbarian kingdom is seen as a true peer of a Roman citizen.

It can slowly evolve into that, of course. But that still needs some kind of basis. How, and why, would equality arise out of a mindset and a system that has been based on inequality from its conception, centuries earlier?

I think you're obsessing of the term equals. It isn't stating that the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths is actually an equal in all ways to the Roman Empire. I understand it as that as far as the alliance goes - they are on the same terms. i.e. "you get attacked, I help you, vice versa". Rather than "you get attacked 3 times, I help you that third time, but you help me every time."

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

Yes, but a major problem is that the Roman mindset didn't really account for federalism. When there were two emperors, each one ruled the whole empire, and had the right to veto any decision by his counterpart. The subsidiarity of the republican model wasn't based on some sort of political decentralist notion, but on the distinction between Rome and its citizenry on one hand, and tributary peoples on the other hand. That's the basis of the very word 'federation': foedus, which means "treaty." The foederati were treaty-bound client peoples.


The key question here is: how do the Romans come up with the idea of federalism? Turning your citizenry into subdivided parts that are basically treated the way treaty-bound vassals are treated is not going to go over well. The idea needs to have some kind of basis on which to develop. Something that inspires the Romans to change their political mindset in that direction. I can't imagine what that might be.

If the Visigothic and Frankish vassal kingdoms survive under Rome from a more successful era of Majorian's conquests, and the late western empire survives a couple centuries longer and takes in many more laeti and foederati, where it's impractical to govern the foederati under separate laws but each Germanized province has recovered enough to challenge Italy and has been granted significant territorial rights, then the Roman Empire could unintentionally turn into a federal system. However, what would differentiate this "foederal" system from feudalism, is the question. As long as the provincial institutions are more powerful than the individual rulers, then it's federalism instead of feudalism.

 

[Skallagrim]

I am only comparing a Roman Empire of Trust to NATO as they represent a network of alliances, where NATO is easily the most egalitarian of the two and still doesn't enforce the equal treatment of citizens. It isn't the EU or an organisation like that. It is literally a treaty of mutual obligation. That isn't entirely removed from the OP.

It is removed from the OP in a crucial sense, on which I'll elaborate below.

I think you're obsessing of the term equals. It isn't stating that the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths is actually an equal in all ways to the Roman Empire. I understand it as that as far as the alliance goes - they are on the same terms. i.e. "you get attacked, I help you, vice versa". Rather than "you get attacked 3 times, I help you that third time, but you help me every time."

If this is all that is intended, I suppose something can be worked out. But that's not what the OP stipulates. Because there we read:

I'm not referring to vassalizing the post-Roman states, demanding tribute, but forming genuine alliances of de jure equals with them, that eventually would entangle those states back into the Roman state?

No vassals, no tribute. Equality of governments, at least. So the king of the barbarians is going to be, de jure, the equal of the emperor of Rome. Well, I pointed out that this would be just as much an issue as the equality of citizens thing. We're talking about more than just some treaty of alliance here, too. Per the OP, the end goal is to entangle these equals(!) back into the Roman state. So what I read there is an end goal that does strike me as The Roman Federation™.

...and that in turn leads us to the equality of citizens issue again. Because once Rome and the post-Roman states turn from an alliance into a (re)union, well.... then the citizens of one equal state are pretty sure to be basically equal to the citizens of any other of the equal states. That this is a factor is readily mentioned in the OP, even:

Problems with this range from the relative power of the post-Roman states to the Empire - though that didn't stop the Republic from doing just this to Egypt - to the contemporary Roman's opposition to the idea that the barbarians should be treated in such terms.

...all in all, I just see a lot of problems with the whole plan. Particulary with the element of the OP that calls for de jure equality. If you turn it around and try for de facto equality, while Rome is formally the more exalted 'leading member' of the group... that's viable. That's a good way to go. Do not misunderstand me here: I like the idea of The Roman Federation™. I think it's cool. I think you can do a lot with it. I even like that Empires of Trust, which is if nothing else an interesting book, gets some attention here. What I'm objecting to is the notion that Rome is going to accept formally having equals. That's my problem with the idea. Rome has no equals, as far as Rome is concerned. Rome may have highly regarded allies, but any club Rome joins, Rome leads. (I don't even like that attitude, but it was the Roman attitude, and one cannot just ignore it or handwave it away.)

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

The Roman Empire is not NATO. The modern mindset of basic equality is just that: modern. Recent. Completely anachronistic when projected onto any moment before modernity, and asroundingly out of place in the ancient world. Rome had not had equals; had not ever seen any barbarian power as an equal. To accept that such a thing could exist would be... well, let us say highly unusual.

But they did allow assimilated barbarians to become Roman after multiple generations of having been conquered.