Interauctoritas et Renovatio (A Roman TL)

Very great update euromellows. This really seems like a Rome TL that by having a stronger political foundation that what OTL has to offer, it seems that this reformed Roman republic would last centuries... indeed millenia. Despite grave problems that will plague the republic in the coming centuries, like a version of the Crisis of the Third Centuries; rise of semi-feudalism, occasional warlordism and practical decentralization of power, a Black Plague, barbarian invaders, etc, in my opinion, the Constitution shall strengthen the Roman identity, creating civic nationalism covering various peoples in the Empire. The size of the empire might go bigger and then smaller and then bigger again through time; but it seems this is still the Roman Republic.

And Roman Christianity shall indeed become more interesting, in its place as possibly just one of the many religions of the Empire. One of the largest most likely, being more inclusive and flexible theologically TTL through time, based on my speculation.

But something troubles me, "The Council of Cordoba"? As in Cordoba? Should the right name be Corduba, as the name of the city during Roman times? Why the u shall change into an o? Unless my entire speculation is wrong. But your hints really tells us of a lasting Rome. Sure, it might not be the Rome of ancient times just looking more modern eventually, but this is still the Republic as it is.
 
You bastard, I see what you are going to do with Claudius...:p And he is one of my favorite emperors too...:(

Anyway, that was truly a great update. You have a nice way with words. That's an understatement.
 
But something troubles me, "The Council of Cordoba"? As in Cordoba? Should the right name be Corduba, as the name of the city during Roman times? Why the u shall change into an o?

Thanks for your comments. This was an oversight on my behalf and has reverted to the 'u' - thanks for picking it up! I also enjoyed reading your other thoughts on the timeline in general and how Rome will develop. While I don't want to give away too much, I do see this Rome evolving in such a direction. The development of Roman Christianity is still some centuries off but it is the result of a very different Christianity, of which the first major change was revealed in the last update where Herod Antipas was responsible for the crucifixion (I took my inspiration here from the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter). However the major practical divergence this change allows will not be apparent until the important Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD where the religion takes a drastically different path than to OTL.

slydessertfox said:
You bastard, I see what you are going to do with Claudius... And he is one of my favorite emperors too...

Anyway, that was truly a great update. You have a nice way with words. That's an understatement.

Thanks for the praise. Also my plans for Claudius aren't so nefarious. Overall he will be a good Emperor but will need to act autocratically on occasion to preserve his regime. He will also be more careful than Germanicus with regard to the cravings of public attention, something which will keep the Senate very much on side.
 
Thanks for your comments. This was an oversight on my behalf and has reverted to the 'u' - thanks for picking it up! I also enjoyed reading your other thoughts on the timeline in general and how Rome will develop. While I don't want to give away too much, I do see this Rome evolving in such a direction. The development of Roman Christianity is still some centuries off but it is the result of a very different Christianity, of which the first major change was revealed in the last update where Herod Antipas was responsible for the crucifixion (I took my inspiration here from the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter). However the major practical divergence this change allows will not be apparent until the important Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD where the religion takes a drastically different path than to OTL.

Your welcome.

Wow, I wonder if there is not going to be a Paulician influence on Christianity this time around?

Well, my thoughts on how Rome shall develop is based on your hints, I do wonder about certain things though:

I wonder if when you are going to extend full time Roman citizenship to everyone in the Empire. Of course this is not going to be through a decree, since there is a Constitution that shall prohibit autocratic rule. But will the Princeps position eventually adopt Dominate monarchical flavoring? I'm also thinking if Rome shall be considered more of a constitutional monarchy or a crowned imperial republic by the time of the arrival of its 21st century
technology?

I've read before that Caracalla's decision to extend full time Roman citizenship to everyone is one of the factors of the "barbarization" of the Roman military. So will this is more of a gradual extension of Latin rights to provincials, with exceptions on certain rights on others, but inclusion of voting rights to this group or individual or city? It certainly depends isn't it?
 
My gut is telling me that Caligula will succeed Claudius, if that is so please don't make him ill so he never goes absolutely insane :p

Most of the tales of his insanity (which are suspect at best) didn't start until at least more than a year after the illness so it wasn't the illness.

Thanks for the praise. Also my plans for Claudius aren't so nefarious. Overall he will be a good Emperor but will need to act autocratically on occasion to preserve his regime. He will also be more careful than Germanicus with regard to the cravings of public attention, something which will keep the Senate very much on side.

Ah okay. That calms my fears. :p
 
First I have to say, I like your alternate history very much. Most alternate roman histories I have read here, neglected the most important point: the roman constitution!

I am convinced, it is not enough, to just have a series of good emperors, conquer Germany and Rome will never fall. Of course a roman border Vistula / Tyros would help strategically 300 years later, when the hunnic invasion starts. So dealing differently with this increasingly german threat over the next centuries is a must for Rome's survival.

But this alone would ignore some other main internal reasons of the decline of this ancient superpower, long before the first Vandal or Goth crossed the Rhine-Danube-Border. Without solving the internal issues, Rome will decline and not be able to conquer Germany and integrate it succesfully. They would even not have the power to hold the traditional Rhine-Danube border. Alexander Demandt named about 100 single reasons why Rome felt. However, looking to the internal issues, I like to point out 2 important sets of issues:

- political, economical, social and military mismanagment
- usurpation and civil wars

To solve this, we need a different constitution, as you pointed out already. Heck, I am afraid, we need different romans. I agree with you, that a more stable aristocratic republic (NOT a democracy) or perhaps a constitutional monarchy is promising. However I like to remark, that you missed some very important aspects of a working constitution in your approach so far.

But more about this in my next post. First let me comment the external part of your alternate history: the Conquest of the North. And north means a bit more than Germania Magna up to the Vistula. Even if I am convinced, that military operations are the easier part of any alternate history.

The romans complained heavily about the swamps in northern Germany and the dark and pathless forests of the Central German Uplands. It was a logistical nighmare. And as we all know, the romans won their wars not with pilum and gladius but with spades, oxcarts and plain stubbornness. Additionally such a terrain is perfect for guerilla warfare, and after Arminius teached them this lesson, the nightmare became even worse.

I say, these roman legionairs in Germany, were favored by fortune with these swamps and forests in West-Germany. They never saw the swamps in East-Germany between Elbe and Oder and the polish primeval forests behind the Oder. This eastern part of Germania was a much more horrifying nightmare! And it remained this way until late Middle Ages. However it is a job, that has to be done by strategic reasons. Even if it is hard to create a scenario, were the romans don't loose motivation. They don't know, that the Huns will come.

I guess the main mistake the romans did OTL in Germany, aside from appointing an idiot as Governor and using the wrong model for government an taxation, even if they had others, was to overestimate themselves.

Varus' province between Rhine and Elbe was already a far too big chunk of territory, due to the bad terrain. If I had to advise the romans after the Glades Variana how to reconquer Germany, I would say "in smaller pieces"! For example, first secure southern Germany up to the Main River, which is easier in your scenario, because Boiohaemum is already done and secures the eastern flank. Then go again along the Lippe river and secure the area south of the Lippe up to the Main. And finally go north up to the North Sea. Do it step by step, implement a good logistic and integrate the german tribes carefully, with low taxation (tax revenue here was lousy anyways) and high repsonibilities of local nobles.

Now in your alternate history, Drusus did already the job. The legions secured the Elbe border. My point is, that Germania ulterior is the same story: this chunk is far too big!

I would wait at least 50 years, in order to integrate western Germany half decently and then conquer the area up to the Oder. Perhaps in the meantime roman diplomats could cut a deal with the Suebi and Langobardi and this conquest could become a rather less bloody ingration and provincialisation of a client-state. Again wait another 50 years. Then secure the north flank by invading Denmark, with a nice fleet base in the Baltic Sea, just in order to be prepared for any surprise, that could come from Scandia (Norway, Sweden).

And after another 50 years, finally conquer the rest up to the Vistula. That might took a bit long and includes the threat, that the Goths had migrated south to the Ukraine in the meantime. But an alliance with the Sarmatians, which settled there, should prevent this.

As mentioned above, the North is more than Germania Magna. There is still Dacia. There was a first small "Völkerwanderung", which is often overlooked. From about 1-50 AD the Sarmatians started to migrate west. The Roxolani settled north of the Danube and the roman province Moesia and the Iazyges bypassed the Dacians probably in the north and reached Hungary this way. They settled east of the mid-Danube between the Roman Empire and Dacia and became "Friends of Rome" initially.

Around this point of time, latest during Domitians reign, the Dacians started trouble again. Actually they never really stopped doing so. Already Julius Caesar had a plan to invade Dacia, because these guys where a permanent threat for the thracian client state and even Macedonia. So latest in the 2nd half of the 1st century, the roman republic should conquer Dacia. With the help of the sarmatian allies. If you look to the map now, it makes a lot of sense to finally integrate the Iazyges into the empire. Actually some ancient historians claim, that Marc Aurel planned a province named Sarmatia exactly there. Perhaps a peaceful way would be possible over time? At least such a different approach could become an interesting story.

Whatever you do, latest 300 AD, the roman legions should await the Huns at the Vistula-Tyros border. Best chance, to repulse them is by supporting actively the sarmatian roman allies in the Ukraine. Roman heavy infantry plus loyal german light infantry plus a shitload of syrian archers and sarmatian cavalry should do the job.

A first step into this direction would be, to not give up the territory between Elbe and Oder after Germanicus' desaster. Let the legates in Germania secure the Oder-Border. Assisted by some good diplomats dealing with Suebes, Langobardi and others. At least let them stay client-states for the time being. But don't give up the longterm plan, please!

And another important point. Don't send the new emperor to Germany, in order to do so. This will enforce you to think about, how generals are controlled in your new constitution. This is one of the most important points at all, I like to discuss in my next post. The princeps has no imperium proconsulare anymore, right? And he should not have one in a stable republic! It did not prevent usurpations anyway. So we need a better solution, in order to prevent usurpations against the republic. Unfortunatly, so far I don't see a fully effective mechanism against usurpations in your constitution.
 
Last edited:
With your new constitution you did some good first steps to reform the roman republic inside Rome. But unfortunately thats just half the battle. I like to say "Rome conquered an empire. And afterwards the empire conquered Rome". This process of converting a city state into a real integrated empire lasted over 300 years and is one the most important processes of roman history. So we have to moderate it in your alternate history.

Empire-wide processes and mechanisms are a wide subject. Therefore let us focus on Governors, Legates and Province Management in a first step, which will lead us soon to a reform of military and administration with heavy impact on parts of the constitution. Because for a roman there was no difference between politics, military, administration and even jurisdiction. No divison of powers outside of Rome. All was mostly done by one single person: the proconsul or legatus augusti pro praetore. Just finance-managment was separated later beginning with Augustus reign.

These governors where a serious issue during late republic and empire, because they trend

1. to corruption and illegal exploitation of their province, and
2. to usurp against Rome and/or the emperor if a chance for challenging was granted

There are some more issues with these guys like starting wars illegally for personal Honor & Glory as well as loot in late republic, and overly bureaucratizing the administration in late empire. But let's focus on the 2 most important issues above.

Corruption and exploitation

This corruption and explotation, which was common practice during the republic, had multiple reasons. First it was possible, and thats more than enough for greedy people. On the other hand the republican constitution downright enforced a governor to exploitation. He had to finance a very expensive election campaign to become praetor or consul. So he needed a payback urgently the year after as a governor. One measure here could be, to simply get rid of these elections by the plebs.

This exploitation was a heavy burden for the people onsite and the roman treasury. Additionaly overtaxation for the purpose of self-enrichment lead often to riots. It is not hard to assume, that the pannonian riot in 6 AD and the german riot against Varus in 9 AD was caused by overtaxation mainly. So just with a honest governor like Cicero in Cilicia or Plinius in Bythinia, the battle of Teutoburg-Forest would perhaps never happened.

I am convinced, that no central administration in Rome can stop this exploitation effectively. The special court in republican Rome for "actio de repetundis" was not effective. Even during principate exploits could not be fully stopped. And in late empire things became worse again.

Rome is simply too far away, longrange communication is hard in ancient times and corruption is everywhere. What would help, is more local control. But most historians are convinced, that the idea of federalism was so strange in ancient times, that it would never work, or worst case lead to separatism.

But perhaps a little bit of local control could be introduced, without boggling the mind of the romans. Augustus already introduced the "Consilium Provinciae", e.g. the Consilium Tres Galliae. Unfortunately these yearly conventions of delegates of the cities had no legal power. Their duty was the emperor cult and perhaps they grabbed the chance, to talk with the governor about measures informally.

Now let us formalize this council a little bit. Of course, it could never become a full blown legislative, because this would mean federalism. And just roman citizens in the provinces could become elected for delegate. Fortunately, most nobles of peregrine cities or pacified tribes had granted roman citizen rights anyways; not counting the native romans settling in the provinces.

So in order to control the governors we need a permanent local consilium provinciae with more legal power:
- control of the yearly budget plan of the governor, perhaps by electing a local provincial quaestor
- the right to veto against measures of the governor (not against central law or measures coming from Rome) via using the roman senate as court of appeal

Alternatively or additionally you could introduce permanent "Correctores". The emperors appointed correctores occasionaly and temporarily to deal with ruined regions, e.g. Corrector per Galliam, Corrector per Africa. So a corrector often covered more than one province like the late empire "diocesis". But with a much leaner organisation. These correctores could now also supervise the governors onsite. In coniunction with the consilii using the correctores as first court of appeal, the governors would have a much harder time to exploit provinces.

Perhaps veto against measures and financial supervising is too much for the roman political culture. In this case it would make sense to start with some weaker instruments and give the strong rights just to fully romanized provinces like Sicilia and Gallia Narbonensis first. However there should be a kind of local control, so governors become more careful.


Usurpation and Civil Wars

Now this part is much of a bigger challenge than avoiding exploitation. Roman emperors tried to avoid usurpation by giving every legate not more than 1 legion (Domitian). But this never worked, because in some areas this is strategically not acceptable. Also introducing a central big field army, which should secure the emperor, did not work, because exactly the leaders of these big armies usurped. And both models (single legion, one central field army) was detrimental for the performance of the roman army in general.

However some measures may help to reduce usurpations in a republic:

1. Military Academy

The romans were great fans of training on the job, with the result, that young officers were not qualified sufficently. Young tribunes came directly from roman high school, where they learned rhetoric and grammar mainly. Additionaly they hopefully had read some books about military and made some exercise for fitness. Thats it!
In the military academy the cadets learn about military and administration. Perhaps even more, but more about that in a next post about the educational reform of the republic and universities.
Additonally such an academy could swear young officers to the senate and constitution of Rome.

2. General Staff

The romans had no central general staff as a central high-command, which would have been able to control the commanders in the provinces at least by authority. Also the chance to become a member of the general staff could be a goal for legates, which otherwise have no further option of promotion (but usurp for the throne)

3. Roma Cult

The emperor cult helped a lot during the principate to avoid usurpations against the emperor. The legionairs simply refused to join an usurpation, even if their commanders were willing to do so. However, if the emperor was dead, that was a different story, even during principate. In the republican model, we have no dead emperor with an unclear succession, which otherwise would give automatically room for usurpation. It is clearly the senate, who elects the new princeps. Thats one reason why I strongly recommend to elect the princeps like every magistrate for 3-5 years, in order to avoid any inheritance, which just leads to royal trouble.

Now without a divine emperor, we should promote the Godess Roma to the primary God of the soldiers, with a statue and an altar in every camp. Roma ist not just a known godess, now she stands also for Senate and People of Rome (SPQR) and the holy constitution of the republic. The primary religious duty of every soldier becomes the protection of the constitution.

Additionally we have the already proposed Decemviri Militares( a committee of the senate), which adminstrates the aerarium militare, pay every soldier regulary, pay his donativa and pay his pension plus could decide finally about promotions from centurio upwards. This would help to buildt loyality to the senate, too.

4. Military career

The cursus honorum of a young son of a senator was a mix of political and military offices:

1. the start was usually the "Vigintisexviri", some lower grade officials in Rome, e.g. responsible for the streets (viarum)

2. without any further clue, the young noble applies for tribunus laticlavius, the deputy commander of a legion

3. Quaestor (now he becomes a senator officially)

4. perhaps another time as tribunus laticlavius, but just vir militares did that

5. Aedil

6. now our young guy could command a legion as legatus legionis but reporting to a legatus legionis pro praetore and governor

7. Praetor

8. now this guy became a governor and as legatus augusti pro praetore he could command more than 1 legions in some provinces. Mostly just 1 or 2 but if talented even more

9. Consul

10. mostly just ex-consuls commanded the real big armies of up to 4 legions, e.g. governor of Syria.

The problem with this cursus honorum is obvious to me. When a senator reached his maximum military power, he already had passed maximum political power, too. There was nothing rest. No goal, no carot, which could prevent adventures. Just sitting in the senate and discuss endlessly after returning to Rome.

One measure could be to split military and political offices and careers fully like Diokletian did later. But this lead to a very dangerous esprit de corps which promoted usurpation even further, because these officers now had no clue about adminsitration and showed the necessities of the government no understanding.

Therefore I support a career, where senators hold military and political appointments, but never in personal union. So a split of offices, but a combined career.

Lower Career

The young officer has to complete the new military academy first.

Afterwards the young officer has to hold one or more appointments as a tribunus militum and afterwards as an asistant of a proconsul, which is now a fully civil office.

Last station is deputy commander of a legion as a tribunus laticlavius and afterwards again a civil job, maybe as curator in Rome, which here means a mid-rank magistrate

Mid Career

Now the not so young guy becomes legatus legionis and afterwards a proconsul of a minor province. Now he is called a senator, if no censor disagrees.
Second step is a legatus pro praetore commanding more than 1 legion followed by proconsul of a major province
Finally he could return to Rome or become a legatus pro consule, who commands an army of 4 or more legions

High Career

Back in Rome the senator, who should now about 50 years old, if not died in the meantime, could become a member of the general staff or apply for the major offices in Rome like Praetor and Consul.

A legatus pro consule, who commanded the big armies, becomes member of the general staff automatically after his office as legate. Nevertheless, he can apply for other magistrates like every senator. So a top-job in Rome is guaranteed for all generals leading the big armies.

Such a new cursus honorum needs obviously a change in the constitution. This career in a fully different order leads to a situation, where it makes a lot of sense for every general, to lay down his gladius, come back to Rome and go for the real big offices after his military career. And once without an army, he cannot usurp. Finally he could perhaps even become princeps.

If we need a princeps at all. I also have some more detailed ideas for the military reform and would like to propose a reformation of the traditional offices, too. More like the later imperial central organisation but with traditional republican names. And of course, there is still no fully working division of powers in Rome itself, which leads to a reform of jurisdiction. But thats another story.
 
Last edited:
I am convinced, it is not enough, to just have a series of good emperors, conquer Germany and Rome will never fall. Of course a roman border Vistula / Tyros would help strategically 300 years later, when the hunnic invasion starts. So dealing differently with this increasingly german threat over the next centuries is a must for Rome's survival.

Internal problems has to be dealt with too. But I'm not surprised if euromellows know about this.

But this alone would ignore some other main internal reasons of the decline of this ancient superpower, long before the first Vandal or Goth crossed the Rhine-Danube-Border. Without solving the internal issues, Rome will decline and not be able to conquer Germany and integrate it succesfully. They would even not have the power to hold the traditional Rhine-Danube border.

You're definitely right.


Unfortunatly, so far I don't see a fully effective mechanism against usurpations in your constitution.

As far as what I can remember, the Constitution was created more in the sense of what could possibly be prevented in the future from destroying the republic in the perspective of that time.

Despite the codification and hard way to amend this Constitution, the Constitution is vague enough to make changes without the hard work of amending it.

I'm going to read your ideas below, wait.

Corruption and exploitation

So in order to control the governors we need a permanent local consilium provinciae with more legal power:
- control of the yearly budget plan of the governor, perhaps by electing a local provincial quaestor
- the right to veto against measures of the governor (not against central law or measures coming from Rome) via using the roman senate as court of appeal

Incredible. :)


Alternatively or additionally you could introduce permanent "Correctores". The emperors appointed correctores occasionaly and temporarily to deal with ruined regions, e.g. Corrector per Galliam, Corrector per Africa. So a corrector often covered more than one province like the late empire "diocesis". But with a much leaner organisation. These correctores could now also supervise the governors onsite. In coniunction with the consilii using the correctores as first court of appeal, the governors would have a much harder time to exploit provinces.

This is good too.

Usurpation and Civil Wars

May I ask, should the military academy just a single academy in Rome, or should there be branches in the provinces too?


You know, I'm also concerned about the extension of full time Roman citizenship rights to everyone in the Empire, which some historians said contributed to the barbarization of the Roman military.

All of your proposals can be introduced piecemeal as a reaction to certain events over the course of Pax Romana. By 200 AD as the Republic enters the inevitable crisis period, it would be more ready.
I suggest a more careful extension of it. But anyway, with the Senate around, I doubt that such a Caracalla like extension happen TTL.
 
May I ask, should the military academy just a single academy in Rome, or should there be branches in the provinces too?

It could start with one near Rome, because the majority of roman citizens lived in Italy this time. And the rich had no problem to send their kids abroad. However later I see additional military academies as well as civil universities as part of a major education reform in the more romanized areas and in the some greek centers: Nova Carthago, Narbo, Carthago, Athens, Pergamon, Antiochia, Alexandria and others. Well, perhaps Ctesiphon and Montogiacum too, if things go right.

You know, I'm also concerned about the extension of full time Roman citizenship rights to everyone in the Empire, which some historians said contributed to the barbarization of the Roman military.

I agree, that giving all inhabitants of the empire roman citizen rights was a bad move from Caracalla. Even if the more desastrous consequences were to the civil part of the state. However, to grant roman citizen rights greatly to cities and areas which had romanized succesfully, like e.g. Claudius did was very important. And it is even more important for a republic.

I doubt, that the Constitutio Antoniana was the main reason for the barbarization of the army. I also doubt, that there was a serious barbarization at all before the desastrous battles at Adrianopel and Frigidus in late 4th century. The figures clearly speak against it.

However, I am convinced that the army of the 3rd century and later had an increasing issue with discipline, qualification and performance. But there are more important reasons for that than barbarization. The hassle actually starts earlier, like Hadrians military reform and other measures during the principate.

All of your proposals can be introduced piecemeal as a reaction to certain events over the course of Pax Romana. By 200 AD as the Republic enters the inevitable crisis period, it would be more ready.

It would help alot, if countermeasures start earlier. The decline of the roman society and state was a longterm process. And coutermeasures have to happen before the point of no return is passed. I agree, that more reforms and perhaps changes to the constitution could be added later. But unfortunately some processes which lead to the fall of Rome are already running. They started in the late republic or were caused by wrong decisions of Augustus.
 
Last edited:
Wow Agricola. You have given me a lot to think about and a lot to respond to. I'll try to address some of your points.

First I have to say, I like your alternate history very much. Most alternate roman histories I have read here, neglected the most important point: the roman constitution!

I'm glad you're enjoying it!

To solve this, we need a different constitution, as you pointed out already. Heck, I am afraid, we need different romans. I agree with you, that a more stable aristocratic republic (NOT a democracy) or perhaps a constitutional monarchy is promising. However I like to remark, that you missed some very important aspects of a working constitution in your approach so far.

I agree. The constitution as it is under Drusus is not enough, not nearly enough to maintain such a large Empire. However it is a start and I think a reasonable one at that. In the principate era the Romans still thought in city-state terms and the power structure of the constitution reflects that. What I have sought to achieve with the constitution at this point is to ensure that the centre of power remains with the Senate. You will still get instability, civil wars, usurpations etc, but they will essentially be competing Senators against each other. It won't come from an independent source which is important to keep continuity.

The idea you have about provincial assemblies etc are very good but at this point are not realistic with Roman attitudes at the time. I do have something like it in mind for the long term, but please bear in mind the timeline is presently at 39 AD, only 25 years since the institution of the constitution. I have many constitutional changes planned over the years/centuries and a gradual recognition of provincial governance is one of them.

Varus' province between Rhine and Elbe was already a far too big chunk of territory, due to the bad terrain. If I had to advise the romans after the Glades Variana how to reconquer Germany, I would say "in smaller pieces"! For example, first secure southern Germany up to the Main River, which is easier in your scenario, because Boiohaemum is already done and secures the eastern flank. Then go again along the Lippe river and secure the area south of the Lippe up to the Main. And finally go north up to the North Sea. Do it step by step, implement a good logistic and integrate the german tribes carefully, with low taxation (tax revenue here was lousy anyways) and high repsonibilities of local nobles.

Now in your alternate history, Drusus did already the job. The legions secured the Elbe border. My point is, that Germania ulterior is the same story: this chunk is far too big!

I would wait at least 50 years, in order to integrate western Germany half decently and then conquer the area up to the Oder. Perhaps in the meantime roman diplomats could cut a deal with the Suebi and Langobardi and this conquest could become a rather less bloody ingration and provincialisation of a client-state. Again wait another 50 years. Then secure the north flank by invading Denmark, with a nice fleet base in the Baltic Sea, just in order to be prepared for any surprise, that could come from Scandia (Norway, Sweden).

I agree 50-100 years is the ideal time to "Romanize" the provinces before moving on to the next and conquering Germany that way piecemeal. However you will note that in this timeline that has not happened and the province 'Germania Magna' is still going through the process of romanization when Germanicus ordered his campaign. Also, as you pointed out, the terrain is not conducive to a productive and prosperous colony and all these things go against further expansion to the North at this point. While I agree with what you say, it goes too far Rome's way and I'm not convinced that Rome is immune to making bad decisions like all other Empires.

A first step into this direction would be, to not give up the territory between Elbe and Oder after Germanicus' desaster. Let the legates in Germania secure the Oder-Border.

I'm sorry but for the reasons outlined above Germania Ulterior will be abandoned after an appropriate interval. However the campaign will leave its mark and will have interesting butterfly effects in the future, not just in Rome but also in Germania.

Usurpation and Civil Wars

Love what you've written there and the detail.

The idea of a Roman Military Academy does appeal to me and I once wrote a thread about it some months prior to actually starting this timeline. Once again this will be a gradual process and will mostly be a mechanism of the decemviri militares which you might recall included a reference to it one day controlling the promotions of officers and placement of commanders etc. While I think a formal academy is several centuries away, it will naturally evolve as the function of this committee also evolve (including, in time, becoming the de facto central command as well).

-------

I think all your ideas have merit. However I do think that adopting many of them immediately would not be realistic. I envisage most of them evolving naturally as Rome faces new challenges over the centuries and institutions become modernised etc. For example I see the plebeian tribune in the modern era as a de facto Court of Appeal and retaining only its judicial functions.

Thanks for your interest and I really appreciate your exhaustive post. I also see your knowledge of Rome is very deep and I would continue to welcome any contribution you feel gracious enough to offer.
 
Last edited:
Shameless bump. Whats up dude? We are waiting eagerly for you next update. :D

Btw, I agree with you, that the most reforms I outlined above are longterm. No emperor can establish this all at once or the romans would kill him. For example the local control of governors by a consilium provinciae. However, if you look to the state of the older, more civilized provinces like Gallia Narbonensis, Baetica, Africa Procosularis, Sicilia and some greek provinces, they would perhaps be a good start in the 1st century.

Nvertheless, there are reforms, which should be done sooner or later, in order to stabilize the empire.
 
Last edited:
Shameless bump. Whats up dude? We are waiting eagerly for you next update. :D

Btw, I agree with you, that the most reforms I outlined above are longterm. No emperor can establish this all at once or the romans would kill him. For example the local control of governors by a consilium provinciae. However, if you look to the state of the older, more civilized provinces like Gallia Narbonensis, Baetica, Africa Procosularis, Sicilia and some greek provinces, they would perhaps be a good start in the 1st century.

Nvertheless, there are reforms, which should be done sooner or later, in order to stabilize the empire.

Thanks for the bump. Unfortunately extremely busy with work at the moment and this has prevented me from updating. However parliament will shortly go into recess which will give me a limited window for the next update before it resumes again. Next update will focus on the ascension of Claudius and some of the evident shortcomings of the Constitution.
 
Is this timeline dead?

Sorry, I didn't see your post earlier.

No, this timeline is not dead. I promise. In fact, I have recently started writing the next update, and I will try to work on the update after that before posting. I had put this on hiatus due to completing my novel in my signature. I am currently writing a timeline for that novel to try to promote it a little better here.

I am thinking of writing a second novel based on this world (Interauctoritas). I immensely enjoyed writing the timeline, though real-life has gotten in the way many times. I am on holidays soon, so I hope to get into some serious writing then and update this within the next two weeks.
 

Deleted member 67076

Just wanted to say, this is an amazing timeline you've written.
 
Top