Hadrian's Consolidation - reboot

I could see it happening that way. Especially if the Emperor at the right time was not a particularly good one. But I also think particularly if the emperors keep a more meritocratic system of appointing their heirs based on ability (and hopefully finding a way to keep the rampant civil war issue under control) rather than birth would neatly avoid many of the issue that arose with monarchies from arising in the first place. The end result might be an evolution of the imperial system rather than a revolution to replace it.

What that could end up looking like is something I'll have to think about for a while, as it is set upon very different foundations than any modern Western political system. It is an interesting thought though.

When I said republic I meant more in the sense of greater personal freedoms and the idea of the consent of the governed. Which means a constitutional monarchy is definitely on the table, ofc it could be more revolutionary with the emperor being relegated to a figurehead instantly or it can be more evolutionary as it happened in Britain for example where the monarch lost and relegated power over time.

But stringent republicanism could be interesting too. As could what you suggest, a kind of enlightened absolutism but with the heirs being chosen it cuts down on incompetent heirs and also the feeling that the title is unearned and impossible to attain.
 
I could see, as an administrative tool, the emperor creating regional / provincial advisory bodies, as a centralized bureaucracy in Rome will have no clue what the situation in the provinces is.

Couple that with a somewhat devolved bureaucracy (province X gets to keep Y% of local taxes for local projects), and you might get small steps towards what could evolve into a democratic system in a few hundred years.
 

Hecatee

Donor
I could see, as an administrative tool, the emperor creating regional / provincial advisory bodies, as a centralized bureaucracy in Rome will have no clue what the situation in the provinces is.

Couple that with a somewhat devolved bureaucracy (province X gets to keep Y% of local taxes for local projects), and you might get small steps towards what could evolve into a democratic system in a few hundred years.
Actually it did already work a bit like that OTL, some taxes were imperial but a good number were local for local needs. Look for instead at the baths firewood taxes in Egypt.
Also note that the reform I introduced recently gives more organization at the local level and better way to manage projects without bothering the whole imperial administration
 
I just have to find a way to balance the books so that the Romans stop bleeding bullion East, but that is for later updates...
well, there are massive amber deposits on the Prussian coast - which is in spitting distance from the new roman frontier. besides that, Rome might develop a metallurgical tradition in Italy and Germania like those regions did OTL, and use this as a counter to chinaware (maybe call it romanware?). Even without these, Rome has one massive advantage to china - it borders - or is close to - almost every fertile region in the old world that isn't occupied by a powerful civilization. The eastern European plains, West africa and the black earth belt are all closer to rome in geographical and political terms than to china. if the empire can successfully capitalize on these advantages, their massive population (meaning massive production power and massive talent pool) will make up for any trade advantage the Chinese may have.
 
well, there are massive amber deposits on the Prussian coast - which is in spitting distance from the new roman frontier. besides that, Rome might develop a metallurgical tradition in Italy and Germania like those regions did OTL, and use this as a counter to chinaware (maybe call it romanware?). Even without these, Rome has one massive advantage to china - it borders - or is close to - almost every fertile region in the old world that isn't occupied by a powerful civilization. The eastern European plains, West africa and the black earth belt are all closer to rome in geographical and political terms than to china. if the empire can successfully capitalize on these advantages, their massive population (meaning massive production power and massive talent pool) will make up for any trade advantage the Chinese may have.
what about staring the trans Sahara trade yes there is a small one but kick into high gear like it was in the 1300s?
 
I am definitely a fan of Rome become an enlightened despotic monarchy as I don't think any of those existed in real life and so it'd be interesting to see.(can you tell I find constituional monarchies and democratic republics Boring lol)
 
@SpaceRome IIRC in this timeline Rome has a decent equivalent of porcelain so they don't need that, so far they don't have a hankering for tea and all they really need from China is silk which can be stolen (and had been OTL). But if trade ends up being necessary coffee is a good export Rome could monopolize and sell in China, as is tobacco when it becomes a thing. If Rome could, like the other Europeans will a thousand years later, come to dominate the Indian Ocean trade then they could also be Chinese suppliers of spices, ivory and gems. So yeah if Rome does not become crazy for tea they can eventually smuggle in some silk worms and no longer need China, but even if they do there are plenty of trade options open to them if they put in the work and set up reliable trade routes.

I am definitely a fan of Rome become an enlightened despotic monarchy as I don't think any of those existed in real life and so it'd be interesting to see.(can you tell I find constituional monarchies and democratic republics Boring lol)

Weren't there? I am sure plenty of European monarchs would self-describe this way, Louis XIV and Franz Joseph come to mind. Ofc a question can be raised if they lived up to their purported ideals or had the state machinery to back up their intentions. Ultimately the problems with enlightened despotism are that while the king may be a paragon of virtue he still needs people to carry out his will and if the elites are corrupt and mostly out for themselves then how much can he even change things, and a palace coup is always a threat if he pushes the status quo too far. The more power is concentrated the worse the temptation and greater the corruption, that is why democracy tends to help with this since it spreads the power around in multiple ways. Likewise if the absolutist ruler really wants to get down to it and micromanage society then he starts running into the "free market vs central planning" issue but lets not start that debate here.
My point is that it was tried but it was just not that successful in the long run. Now TTL Rome with its tradition of promoting competent rather than related emperors, relatively free market, civic nationalism and a few other benefits could evolve into a good candidate to make the "enlightened despotism" formula work but a lot of questions remain. Again it could be fun to read about in a timeline, and if it fails then it fails.
 

Hecatee

Donor
My main problem right now is that the finances of the Roman empire had 2 issues :

1) Export of bullion : the Romans had, OTL, few goods wanted by other parties. Yes we do have some fine glass beakers found in Afghanistan, but mostly they traded bullion, silver and gold, to the foreign countries and brought goods back. Due to that roman gold and silver mines had to produce a lot, and at some points they depleted their stockpiles, leading to inflation because the precious metal content of their coins diminished : this is what led, in part, to Diocletian's edict of the maximum prize (Edictum de pretiis rerum venalium) from 301. Of course I can have them discover the Hertz mines and become Habsbourg before time, but this is an issue. On the other hand I think (without being sure, I'll have to look into it somewhat more) than the oriental nations, including China, were in part dependant on that bullion for their own economic stability... so cutting the supplies might lead to more problems down the road.

2) Any product entering the empire had to pay high taxes, and thoses taxes on the eastern trade alone were about one third of the empire's incomes. If the silk making process gets stolen then I lose a good deal of this massive income as the taxes on internal trade were much less important. Also silk would get much less expensive inside the empire, so we could see silk becoming the Empire's cotton and a common part of everyone's clothing...
 
2) Any product entering the empire had to pay high taxes, and thoses taxes on the eastern trade alone were about one third of the empire's incomes. If the silk making process gets stolen then I lose a good deal of this massive income as the taxes on internal trade were much less important. Also silk would get much less expensive inside the empire, so we could see silk becoming the Empire's cotton and a common part of everyone's clothing...
This will end the bullion hemorrhage for silk though, and if coffee becomes exported to China then trade will be balanced. The Empire can undergo financial reforms to correct the tax revenue instead. Banking maybe.
 
what about staring the trans Sahara trade yes there is a small one but kick into high gear like it was in the 1300s?
I don't think there was any subsaharan trade at the time (unless I missed something in an update), as the berbers would not use camels to trade with the people south of the sahara until the 3rd century. the romans might be able to hasten the camel-adopting process (roman Arabia and northern Sahara wink wink), but the main problem here is that there aren't any Ghana-like empires in the area able to provide the necessary volume in resources the romans needs for sustained large-scale trade. such an empire might eventually coalesce if the Romans make steady contact and some trade with the locals, but it is more likely that the romans will want to conquer the area - or make it the center of an african client kingdom - instead of trading with it.
 
I don't think there was any subsaharan trade at the time (unless I missed something in an update), as the berbers would not use camels to trade with the people south of the sahara until the 3rd century. the romans might be able to hasten the camel-adopting process (roman Arabia and northern Sahara wink wink), but the main problem here is that there aren't any Ghana-like empires in the area able to provide the necessary volume in resources the romans needs for sustained large-scale trade. such an empire might eventually coalesce if the Romans make steady contact and some trade with the locals, but it is more likely that the romans will want to conquer the area - or make it the center of an african client kingdom - instead of trading with it.
Rome conquering an army cross the Sahara that would be hard i could see a roman like kingdom rising in sub Sahara Africa from contact from Rome
 
so we could see silk becoming the Empire's cotton and a common part of everyone's clothing

This.

When I was in grade school my class bred silkworms for a class project and we spun a little bit of string from the chewed out cocoons. They're super easy to take care of and a few years later I got some silkworms to feed to my bearded dragon given the vet was saying he had stomach problems and hard shelled insects were contributing to a blockage. My mother who was also super into crocheting and knitting at the time wanted to spin silk from the cocoons but suddenly lost heart when I told her you needed to boil the pupae alive :p. But yeah, I'm actually surprised silk is still so expensive given it doesn't seem overly expensive to produce. I also hear they're a delicacy in South Korea, what were the Roman's view on eating bugs?

and if coffee becomes exported to China

See it's one thing to export something permanent like Silk that will last for years across the continents but a material that you're going to immediately eat at then it's gone is something that could only be traded along much more secure short routes, think like cinnamon from Sri Lanka. It was only until the invention of better ships and sail rigging in the 17th century that it would have been profitable to export something like Tea all the way from China or Sugar from the Caribbean.
 
My main problem right now is that the finances of the Roman empire had 2 issues :

1) Export of bullion : the Romans had, OTL, few goods wanted by other parties. Yes we do have some fine glass beakers found in Afghanistan, but mostly they traded bullion, silver and gold, to the foreign countries and brought goods back. Due to that roman gold and silver mines had to produce a lot, and at some points they depleted their stockpiles, leading to inflation because the precious metal content of their coins diminished : this is what led, in part, to Diocletian's edict of the maximum prize (Edictum de pretiis rerum venalium) from 301. Of course I can have them discover the Hertz mines and become Habsbourg before time, but this is an issue. On the other hand I think (without being sure, I'll have to look into it somewhat more) than the oriental nations, including China, were in part dependant on that bullion for their own economic stability... so cutting the supplies might lead to more problems down the road.

2) Any product entering the empire had to pay high taxes, and thoses taxes on the eastern trade alone were about one third of the empire's incomes. If the silk making process gets stolen then I lose a good deal of this massive income as the taxes on internal trade were much less important. Also silk would get much less expensive inside the empire, so we could see silk becoming the Empire's cotton and a common part of everyone's clothing...

Most of trade with the east was in SPICES not silk if I remember correctly. Roman authors exaggerated the importance of silk because it clashed with their moral sensibility associating it with decadence. Only the wealthy could afford silk anyways while spices was consumed by a much larger population.

In other words Rome can definitely afford the hit from lower silk imports (supposing Chinese silk remains of higher quality many of the wealthiest will continue to prefer it). The reduction in silver deficit is also not so dramatic because spice imports will continue.
 
Most of trade with the east was in SPICES not silk if I remember correctly. Roman authors exaggerated the importance of silk because it clashed with their moral sensibility associating it with decadence. Only the wealthy could afford silk anyways while spices was consumed by a much larger population.

Frankincense and Myrrh also

EDIT: Actually you know what, would it be possible to export Tyrian Purple to the east? that should make up the deficit if they get a hankering for it, send a few batches of it to the Han emperor as gifts.

Also a much faster method of contact with the east is probably through the Kushan Empire, sail to Barbarikon then up the Indus then into the Tarim basin and from there to Loyang.
 
Last edited:

Hecatee

Donor
Most of trade with the east was in SPICES not silk if I remember correctly. Roman authors exaggerated the importance of silk because it clashed with their moral sensibility associating it with decadence. Only the wealthy could afford silk anyways while spices was consumed by a much larger population.

In other words Rome can definitely afford the hit from lower silk imports (supposing Chinese silk remains of higher quality many of the wealthiest will continue to prefer it). The reduction in silver deficit is also not so dramatic because spice imports will continue.
I thought so too but McLaughlin's "The Roman Empire and the Silk Road" changed my view on it, silk was also a major trading item and its very high value was part of the very high tax income linked to it
 
I thought so too but McLaughlin's "The Roman Empire and the Silk Road" changed my view on it, silk was also a major trading item and its very high value was part of the very high tax income linked to it

Pliny only claimed that the silk trade was costing 100 million sesterces per year which is a paltry amount as imperial revenues stood at somewhere around 1.2 billion sesterces at the time of Domitian. So the loss of duties on 100 million sesterces is a small fraction of the imperial budget.
 
Is the empire partially self sustaining at this point? I'm not referring to the trade with the east, but to the semi-kleptocracy the empire was in for much (or all) of its lifetime. can production and agriculture sustain economic growth by their own at this point? because that will hugely stabilize the empire, but it will also remove some or most of the urge for further conquest (which just seems non-roman, y'know)
 

Hecatee

Donor
I'm not sure the old economical theory that Rome was in fact a predatory economy somewhat like the 3rd Reich is true. Rome spent a lot of bullion/cash buying the peace of its neighboors, as is seen by a number of archeological deposits in, for instance, germanic contexts. It sometime went into ennemy territory to get some of that bullion back, but overall it mostly traded : the Germanic Limes has been shown to have more of a trade tax collection role, and even Hadrian's wall is supposed to have played in large part such a role, even if both also simplified in part military control of the border (but did not prevent attacks accross it). Here I don't think that the overall economic imput of the empire has changed that massively yet, except in the marginal areas : there I suspect we see somewhat superior agricultural techniques and thus production. We see some new products, such as cast iron or the specialized, luxury and labour intensive lenses for the telescopes and binoculars, and they do indeed bring new kind of cash, as does the coal mines that have opened in some limited places, but that's more ways to spread a bit the thesaurized cash of the elite, not fully support the economy.
At least that's how I see things right now, would love to be contradicted
 
I think that a telescope would perhaps be disturbing on its effects on Chinese society, much as it would Romes. Something China does not have,valuable in war, and desired for the study of the sky. The changes that an early Copernicus will not challenging a church so much, still fighting an ingrained belief of the world.
 
Domus Augusta, Rome, May 177

Hecatee

Donor
Domus Augusta, Rome, May 177


It had been a week since the last meeting of the Senate. A week during which many intense discussions had taken place on the topic of the serican expedition and its results.

No decision had been taken by the Senate other than congratulate the members of the expedition, grant a number of promotions and gifts on the sailors and soldiers who had taken part, and give thanks to the Emperor for having let this expedition take place.

In the background however many felt this information would lead to great changes. But in what ways ? This was the main topic on the order of the day for the concilium principes, the closest councilors to the emperor, that met in a secluded room in the imperial palace on the Palatine hill.

Marcus Aurelius was first to speak, which was not usual, but he felt he needed to give a direction to the debate : now was no longer the time of shock and discovery but of action : “We have all heard the report, read its longer version, discussed it with our friends, our associates and our allies, it is now time to turn this talk into acts. We can no longer escape the fact that our world has been drastically enlarged. Places no myths had ever mentioned have been discovered, places not even wandering Hercules had seen, places not even the bacchanalian cortege had walked through, places not even Odysseus had sailed past.

The thoughts of the Alexandrian philosophers seem to indicate that a lot of the world remains unexplored, seas that have never seen the sail of a roman ship. Here today is the prefect of the Misenian fleet, whom I’ve asked to come to lend his nautical experience to our discussions and whom I thank for his promptitude. You also see around the table faces you know well even if they are not used to appear in concilium, and by that I mean the five representants of the largest trade and banking conglomerates of this city, speaking from the point of view of the equestrian order.

From where I stand I see dangers and I see opportunities. I see affairs at sea and on land. I see work for our legions but also for our traders and our sailors. What I don’t know, and expect you will tell me if not today at least in the near future, is how much it may cost, and how much it may bring the empire.

I will start with the world we know. The secret of silk has been discovered, showing that Pliny himself had it somewhat wrong, and that it can be replicated if the worms can be brought here. We’d need to learn the best lands for growing them, and I doubt the Sericans would allow us to learn, but that is something we can try to find out. Other secrets such as the forges of the big island south of India, whose name escapes me right now, can also be researched and found : I do not doubt that now that they know of it our engineers in the Academia will be able to reproduce and improve them.

What concerns me more is the tribes of the sea of grass. We have been lucky none have been as hostile to us as those met by the Sericans, but it does not mean it could not happen. Both us and the Bosphorean kingdom are vulnerable to such threats. I hear that our ally has built a wall, modelled on the divine Hadrian’s one, to seal itself off and thus make sure the heart of its power is protected, although its easternmost part is not and can’t really be protected.

Our own border on the Tisia is safe, but as the Rhenus and Danuvius show no river is wide enough that it may not be crossed even by barbarians. Eight years ago we crushed the Marcomanni, and moved our borders. Roads have been laid, towns founded, and peace maintained, but we must probably make sure our border is better protected, shorter, and more importantly we must learn more about what happens in the East and on the sea of grass, so that we may act before a threat comes on our borders. We must also make sure our army knows how to fight in such a region. So I want exploratores and traders to go in those areas, to discover who lives there, what the lay of the land might be, whether a better frontier might be had.

Second is the question of the sea and of the rest of the world. We have discovered much, and we have also learned that we know nothing. The Alexandrian scholars and Livy tell us of Carthaginian expeditions to the west of Africa, further than our own shores, and of peoples met there, savage but with some of whom trade could be had. Also looking at the maps show that if Earth is indeed a sphere as we hear then either Africa is much larger than we think and goes all the way from our shore to the bottom of the sphere and back up on its other side to connect with hyperborea, or it must be possible to sail around it. Likewise either the great western ocean is empty and allows for direct travel to Serica, which the size of the world given by the Alexandrian scholars makes unlikely because otherwise there would be a rupture of equilibre in the world which would seem strange, or there are unknown lands of unknown riches but maybe too far for us to reach.

The question is whether the state must do anything about it or let those private people who want to take the risk go explore those unknown lands ? This, gentlemen, is what I expect you to discuss now.”
 
Top