In Defence of the Republic - a Roman Republic TL

I understand, that you are focussing on shortterm measures in this chapter. Again very well written and it seems you adressed all the urgent issues inseide Rome. These measures are badly needed, no doubt about that. I tried to find some hints about your plans for the badly needed longterm structural changes. If you started them already, your first steps are perfectly hidden.

Juts a few questions and comments:

Indeed, said session was spent on rearranging the government of the City, for the censors were dismissed as unacceptable [2], Cicero was indeed appointed the new Princeps Senatus to Senatorial acclaim, and many of the lost privileges of the office restored again, the increase in both dignitas and auctoritas high enough to give Cicero true mastery of the Senate.

How was the the government rearranged? I just read, that a few senators were kicked.

Cicero cared about himself a lot. It seems that the majority of the aristocracy saw him less important. How was the office of the princeps senatus modified, in order to enable Cicero to have at least a small chance for anything remotely close to mastery?

Cicero requested something like a "mediator" in his proposal for reforms. This is some super-honest aristocrat, who balances everything with his outstanding auctoritas and keeps the senate working efficiently. Augustus obviously has read Ciceros books. And he implemented himself as a kind of mediator. But of course not just with auctoritas and dignitas, but also with way more potestas than a princeps senatus had in the early days. Did I mention, that Cicero was somewhat naive?


The stream of Egyptian gold was crucial to keep the city running, pay the legions and help returning many of the properties and fortunes lost by those who had opposed the Triumvirs, but it was not an infinite source of money.

OTL Augustus used a lot of the egyptian treasury in order to disband, lots of legions. About 70 legions are way more, than the roman state can pay. Even not with egyptian gold. I miss any action about urgently needed mass disbandment of legions

Returning land to the people who owned it before the proscriptions is also not that easy. Often it was given to roman veterans. You have to pay a lot, in order to convince them, to leave their new land. Or you pay a lot to the former owner as a compensation.

Ruthlessness was to prevail, as the Senate provisionally kept three legions under Plancus to guard Rome and disbanded the rest, settling them among the vast estates that had belonged to their worse enemies.

This may work for a few cohorts. But not for the lot of legions you have to disband. Cassius led half of the legions to the north. 3 legions are guarding Rome. That means that there are still a ton of legions to disband urgently.

On account of their age their appointment was made for eighteen months and under instructions by the Consul Volcatius Tullus and Lepidus got to work, expelling a few dozen Senators (mostly key supporters of Antonius and Octavianus) to then swell the ranks of the Senate with the scions of the more prestigious families, Senators expelled on account of their participation on the civil war, an a number of wealthy eques that were supportive of the basic aims of the Pact of Neapolis or, alternatively, were clients of the factions that were slowly emerging through the city.

Augustus planned to reduce the senate from 900 (since Julius Caesar) back to the old 300. He failed and finally the imperial senate was 600 men strong. I am afraid, with your measures the senate will stay about 900 or best case 600. Well, if you like to disempower the senate, this is the right way to go. But is that really your intention?

And of course the romans were very aware, that every change in the numbers of senators is strongly connected with the number of magistrates on entry level. So no reform of the senate without a reform of the magistrates. I understand, that this first reform of the senate was intended to be rather cosmetic and just to avoid any trouble?
 
Last edited:
Just to be a bit more precise about disbanding legions:

Historians guess, that during the civil wars about 70 legions were under arms. Just about 17-19 on each side fought at Philippi. Thats 36 legions in total, plus auxiliaries and allies of course. I assume similar numbers for your TL. But there are additional legions in Gallia, Hispania, Africa, Sicilia, Egypt, Syria, Italy and elsewhere in your TL. So a total of 70 legions like guessed OTL is not that bad.

When Augustus reformed the army, he went to the economical limit. He even had to introduce new taxes in order to pay these numbers longterm. These were new taxes for the romans, because the provinces were fully bled out. He kept 28 legions of 5000 men, which are 140.000 men. At this time the auxilia were roughly of even strength with another 140.000 men. Add the cohorts in Rome and the fleet and you end up with the usual 300.000 men mentioned for the early empire.

Looking to the 70 legions we have to say, that we don't know their strength. But it is a safe guess, that not all of them were full strength. When Julius Caesar arrived in Alexandria he was accompanied by Legio VIIII, which was already melted down to 1000 men. The famous Legio X is guessed to be about 3000 men strong, and so on. The republican romans usually never replenished legions. They were recruited together and disbanded together. On the other side, a lot of the newly recruited legions might have been full strength. So let's assume, these 70 legion are 3500 men strong in average, which sums up to 245.000 men.

So we have to disband 105.000 men. Some of the legions raised during the civil war were "illegally" composed of non-romans. Augustus transformed them into auxiliary cohorts. Other auxilia were simply sent home. Same with allies and mercenaries. However, the numbers of such illegal legions were not that high, perhaps less than 10%. So we still have about 85.000 men to disband. That's more than a few cohorts, is'nt it?

I am not sure, that even all the land occupied by Caesarians after the proscriptions is enough for this amount of men. And there are some issues with this occupied land.

- Some land was granted to high caesarian officers and big landwoners. Usually they simply leased the land to small tenants or rather undertook the existing contracts. Of course you can expropriate these rich caesarians. I understand, that you want to give the land back to its former owners and families anyways. Usually also rich landowners, but followers of the liberatores. But that does mean, that this land is not available for disbanding poor roman soldiers.

- Some Caesarians might have sold their new land to others. Now you run into deep trouble according to roman law, if you try to expropriate. You better reimburse them with the funds from the egyptian treasury.

- I guess, that some former owners and their families were simply fully wiped out during the civil wars. So you might use this land for disbanding legions? I doubt, you can without even more trouble. Antonius and Octavian gave some of the land to their veterans. Most of them re-hired shortly afterwards to fight against the Liberatores. I wish you good luck to expropriate thousands of veterans in Italy. Again, you better reimburse the former owners with funds from the egyptian treasury. The romans often executed or exiled the officers of a defeated usurping army. But they never harmed the legionaries, veterans and centurions of the defeated opposing army, by very good reasons.

So far you wrote, that you just have disbanded a few cohorts in a first wave. So far so good, that's possible. But there are still about 80.000 soldiers eating the republic out of house and home. Not countig the 140.000 men of the future army without a solid financing yet, too. The supernumerary legions have to be disbanded asap! Some of them might accept money instad of land; again out of the egyptian treasury. But their is no way to grant them land in Italy. Narbonensis is also already pretty occupied. So there is no way without colonisation in other provinces. I know, that the aristocratic senate was always heavily against colonisation, because the aristocrats feared an imbalance in patron-client relationships like the plague. Whoever founded a colony got an heavy increase in clients. That was another flaw of the roman republic with a society, where political power was strongly based on patron-client relationships.

But if these stubborn and selfish aristocrats do not start to change their mind now, the republic is doomed to fall anyways.

And of course, whatever you do. The egyptian treasury is melting faster than a snowball in the hell.

PS: I just checked Res Gestae 3: "Millia civium Romanorum sub sacramento meo fuerunt circiter quingenta. Ex quibus deduxi in colonias aut remisi in municipia sua stipendis emeritis millia aliquanto plura quam trecenta, et iis omnibus agros adsignavi aut pecuniam pro praemis militiae dedi"

So Augustus said, that he had 500.000 men under arms, and he disbanded 300.000 of them. I guess that this figure includes auxilia. Did he recruit 100.000 new soldiers over time to get the new total of 300.000, I drafted above? Well, after all the Res Gestae are imperial propaganda of the finest. So we should take it with a grain of salt. On the other hand, Augustus could not simply lie about the hard-facts just a few decades after the events.
 
Last edited:
Yeesh what happened to this beautiful timeline? The author hasn't been on here for a month! Could we save it?
 
I hope it was not my response to his concept, which feared him away. :eek:

It is nothing new. Guys come along. They are great writers writing great stories. And suddenly they give up. Did they surrender, when they recognized what a great challenge changing the history in a plausible manner is? Or did they just move to other topics of interest, whatever they may be?

We will never know. :confused:
 
Apologies!

To tell the truth, I have been struggling to have enough time and energy to devote to my TL as not only I had to deal with college (and some student politics I've been participating on), but with health issues too as I've suffered from headaches over the past weeks (which may or may not be hypertension, despite the fact that I'm a bit young for that).

But I haven't given up on this at all, as I've had enough time to do research and ponder on the suggesstions you've given me (which seem pretty reasonable, I will reply to those very soon).

Expect an update pretty soon, hopefully over the weekend!
 
For simplicities sake, I would merely change the BC dates to BCE and future AD dates to CE (common era) so that we the audience aren't left grasping straws on when this or that AUC date takes place. Feel free to still use the AUC dates alongside the BCE/CE calendars, of course.

Already done! It was a very good suggestion, actually.

So what happened to Tiberius Claudius Nero after this Liberatores victory? I assume his Imperial son has been butterflied away...

Tiberius Claudius Nero played a crucial role in driving Fulvia out of Rome after the Pact of Neapolis, and is now a man with a lot of future in the Optimate regime (and we will see him later). Tiberius the OTL Emperor is born in this timeline too, but he will have a vastly different childhood, not to mention his OTL brother Drusus is butterflied away.

I wonder if we could (for cultural diversity's sake) keep the Thracian Kingdom around as a long-lived client state, serving as a buffer to the Danube and shipping tons of falxes and gold to the legions galore? The only price being ceding their Aegean coast for some Byzantine province.

Actually, could Roman roads be built after this upcoming campaign to connect Thessaloniki with Byzantium to Odessa, Olbia/Tyras and to Pantikapaion, a complete Black sea highway for the benefit of both the client states and the legions? Or would the senate forbid the construction of roads for client states?

Of course! We will go to Thrace later as the Optimates have a debt to be repayed there, and there's plans for that Kingdom. Whether those roads could be built from Senate command is dubious, as most of the roads of the era are actually the work of individuals rather than the Senate itself (Scaurus and the Via Aemilia Scaura, Pompeius opening a road through the Narbonese Gaul, and so on). It may come up if a future Governor of Asia is ambitious enough, but I make no promises.

Have we heard anything from Jerusalem yet? Christianity is indeed going to be butterflied away, but HOW?

Jerusalem will the seen later, along with most of the East.

Also I doubt that Arsinoe, the Hellenic foil to Isis-worshipping Cleopatra, would find it acceptable to seduce someone like Cassius.

Point taken! A Lucius Cassius / Arsinoe romance was always a corny narrative idea, but I've decided on a different course of action for young Lucius (who goes from almost unknown IOTL to a crucial part of the Senate later on).

I also wonder how this will effect the immediate future of philosophy. Would Cicero write more orations/poetry/etc? What of Livy? Is Ovid butterflied away?

Cicero I find it dubious as he will be even more busy as Princeps Senatus, but if he lives long enough (and I don't give him more than a decade), it's possible he might write on political philosophy. Ovid is born as IOTL, yes, but I haven't decided what do to with him and Livy. Pollio is of course dead, and Virgil will show up... as a politician.
 
I understand, that you are focussing on shortterm measures in this chapter. Again very well written and it seems you adressed all the urgent issues inseide Rome. These measures are badly needed, no doubt about that. I tried to find some hints about your plans for the badly needed longterm structural changes. If you started them already, your first steps are perfectly hidden.

Juts a few questions and comments:

How was the the government rearranged? I just read, that a few senators were kicked.

The Senate has indeed been changed in terms of composition to account for the loss of "Optimate" (I use that as a very broad term) influence, expulsing the die-hard Caesarians to bring both members of the nobilitas who back the Pact of Neapolis and suitable eques willing to back that order as well. This also ties with the Senate's increase in power via the Princeps Senatus, and Metellus's reforms to increase the treasury personnel and it's accountability. But these measures are mostly a prelude.

Cicero cared about himself a lot. It seems that the majority of the aristocracy saw him less important. How was the office of the princeps senatus modified, in order to enable Cicero to have at least a small chance for anything remotely close to mastery?

Cicero requested something like a "mediator" in his proposal for reforms. This is some super-honest aristocrat, who balances everything with his outstanding auctoritas and keeps the senate working efficiently. Augustus obviously has read Ciceros books. And he implemented himself as a kind of mediator. But of course not just with auctoritas and dignitas, but also with way more potestas than a princeps senatus had in the early days. Did I mention, that Cicero was somewhat naive?

I think you are absolutely right when it comes to the aristocracy not caring much for Cicero at some point... but the Senatorial leaders are virtually gone by this point. Cato, Bibulus, the elder Ahenobarbus, Metellus Scipio, all gone. Pompeius cares only for his influence and holding Sicily now, Cassius is busy fighting up North, Lepidus has to be careful on his moves and Brutus, who is the remaining political head, is on excellent terms with Cicero. As proved by his previous mastery of the Senate on 43 BC, Cicero hardly has a Senatorial opponent of his stature at this particular point in time.

I will go on detail with the reforms, but the idea is that Sulla's supposed reforms on the Princeps Senatus are overruled, returning to the Princeps Senatus of the times of Marcus Aemilius Scaurus on legal terms. That means the Princeps Senatus once again leads the Senate debates and has a right to speak first before the Senate. Those powers, plus prestige, plus the sort of respect his name commands before the eques and the pedarii gives him indeed the influence I think he wished to have. Is he terribly naive? Yes, but he is put into a context in which he doesn't have an evident rival. At least for the next couple of years, as the Senate regains its influence.

Augustus planned to reduce the senate from 900 (since Julius Caesar) back to the old 300. He failed and finally the imperial senate was 600 men strong. I am afraid, with your measures the senate will stay about 900 or best case 600. Well, if you like to disempower the senate, this is the right way to go. But is that really your intention?

And of course the romans were very aware, that every change in the numbers of senators is strongly connected with the number of magistrates on entry level. So no reform of the senate without a reform of the magistrates. I understand, that this first reform of the senate was intended to be rather cosmetic and just to avoid any trouble?

Yes, it is a cosmetic reform, mostly because the Senate has really taken a hit on membership and Cicero and company need a Senate that will be on their side. The least thing they want is to leave a Senate full of covert Caesarians to proscribe them ten, twenty years into the future (like the political trials of 90BC). In any case, a mistake that will probably be made by Ciceroand the Optimates is to ignore magistrate reform due to the Mos Maorium.
 
Just to be a bit more precise about disbanding legions:

On second thought, it does seem the issue of the soldiers is one I need to put more thought into, mostly because I've been optimistic on the Egyptian treasury taken from Cleopatra's defeat. That said, I will leave the measures of the last chapter as reflective of a few cohorts being settled whenever possible as a potential route, and think of a better way to look at the problem (although regardless of what I think of I'll probably have to account for legionary revolts here and then).
 
I will go on detail with the reforms, but the idea is that Sulla's supposed reforms on the Princeps Senatus are overruled, returning to the Princeps Senatus of the times of Marcus Aemilius Scaurus on legal terms.

I am not aware of these differences, but I am sure you will explain them in your next chapter.

Just some proposals beyond the traditional right to speak first. Give the Princeps the right to invoke the senate and put topics on the agenda.

In the republic a consul could decline to invoke the senate. Or he could decline to put a certain topic on the agenda. He even could put a topic on the agenda, let the senate discuss, but not decide, if he did not like the discussion. Because, IF the senate took a formal decision the senatus consultum was legally binding for the magistrate.

I would also formalize the republican tradition (unfortunately just mos not lex), that every law should be pre-discussed by the consulares. This often helped to avoid useless discussions and disputes in the senate. Very often the senate was not able at all to take a decision. The later consilium principis was probably implemented by Augustus to do exactly that: pre-discuss proposals of Augustus. Of course Augustus was an other kind of princeps as Cicero is supposed to be. But as mentioned above, Cicero proposed to implement the role of a mediator, which could obviously be the princeps senatus. In order to perform this role, the princeps needs instruments and rights.

Cicero also proposed to implement permanent censors, which are leading all lower magistrates (Aediles, Quaestores, ...) directly. This also meant, that these lower magistrates become multiplied and just clerks; perhaps even non-senatorial longterm clerks. You know, the censors did much more than just performing a census and the adlectio to the senate. They had a core function in the administration of the republic by negotiating all major administrative contracts (tax contracts, major projects, ....). It is beyond me, how this function could not be permanent. Perhaps the princeps could get censoria potestas, too. Or at least plays a leading role in the administrative processes of the censors (mediator).

These are of course just a few smaller steps to work on the issues of the political system and just regarding the senate. There are much more critical issues.
 
Last edited:
Top