On eastern shores – A Roman Timeline

[Agricola]

I still see no difference to the army of the 1st century.

A roman soldier had 3 accounts. One was his private bank account in his legion (depositum), where he could deposit parts of his salary. But due to bad experience with a legate in Germania, this depositum was capped to an amount, that no exploit made sense anymore. The 2nd account was very small for travel purposes only (viaticum). The money for the retirement was always paid from Rome. Probably via a financial procurator. Also parts of the donativa went into the soldiers retiremet account.

These procurators also dealt with the tax income and all other spurces of income. The legates had no access to the treasury of the province. The legate had to ask the procurator every 4 month for the money he needed to pay soldiers and everything else.

Soldiers usually went not flat broke, when they usurped and lost the war. The emperor needed soldiers. And often you could not blame the soldiers for fighting on the wrong side, e.g. Vespasian after winning the first civil war. However, in some (smaller) cases legions were punished by dishonorable discharge.

The only difference I see is, that your generals (hands), are not coming out of a military career / hierarchy. Actually until Diocletian the romans had a mixed civilian / militarian career. But how should somebody become a general (hand), without military experience based on a military career? How should they be a general commanding a huge army, without beeing part of the military hierarchy? Of course all big generals should be handpicked proteges of the emperor. But this was already the case, too.

 

[EmperorOfTheNorthSea]

That would be one hell of a migration! I'd be all for it, but the costs of ensuring the Slavic Kingdom that marches through the Roman Empire to the Persian is large

Just have a Legion escort them and they should be good.

unless they travel via the Black Sea, across the Caucuses and around the Caspian Sea

Just have the Caspain sea fleet pick them up on the Northern shore of the Caspian and have them Settle on the fertile Southern shores of the Caspian sea (which is probably one of the only large breadbaskets left in the Persian empire with Mesopotamia gone).

How tempted would the Germanic and Slavic peoples BE by an offer of all the wealth of Persia at their feet? Because we need to know if they'd accept the offer first.

I'm sure they would be more than happy to join the Romans in a good ol' fashioned loot and pillaging. Throw some promises of Land in the deal and they'd be jumping at the opportunity.

I would love to see a Germanic/Slavic/Persian/Parthian hybrid culture spring up, heck after Rome falls in a few centuries and someone rises to power they might even decide to go and try conquering India again.

 

[Agricola]

Having a Viceroy is a good idea. Actually the romans knew this concept, it is called co-emperor or Caesar. Whenever there was an accepted co-emperor installed (imperium proconsulare and tribunicitas potestas), the succession went usually pretty smoothly. Well, after Caligulas death, the romans luckily found Claudius behind this curtain. Without that, a civil war like after Nero and Commodus would have been highly probable. If Nero or Commodus would have had a co-emperor, I doubt we would have seen a civil war. Also during Nervas reign a civil war would have happened, if the praetorians would not had kidnapped and enforced Nerva to appoint a co-emperor now.

Of course there are more reasons for usurpation than just unclear succession. Especially since the roman empire came under pressure in the 3rd century. Now the legions themselves started to usurp and not only their legates. And the 4th and 5th century developed even more innovative kinds of usurpations.

So we agree, that an emperor should always have an co-emperor. Best case appointed from day 1. But think about both have sons. Now, things may become complicated. Also there are tons of reasons, why these two guys might start a civil war. So a Viceroy is a good idea. But we are still far away from solving the multi-dimensional issue of usurpations and civil wars.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

So we agree, that an emperor should always have an co-emperor. Best case appointed from day 1. But think about both have sons. Now, things may become complicated. Also there are tons of reasons, why these two guys might start a civil war. So a Viceroy is a good idea. But we are still far away from solving the multi-dimensional issue of usurpations and civil wars.

Radical thought - no Emperor may have children, and upon having children, or adopting them, they must abdicate?

 

[Agricola]

Radical thought - no Emperor may have children, and upon having children, or adopting them, they must abdicate?

I doubt that works. Let's come back to young Nero, who died without a co-emperor and caused a civil war this way. Let's assume Nero was enforced (by whom???) to appoint one when he was inthronized. Of course this co-emperor should be a very experienced and accepted roman senator, right? This means at least of consular rank, right?

Usually guys of consular rank already have children. What do you expect? That roman senators stop making children, just to keep their chance to get emperor? And the senatorial class dies out this way?

What you need, is an instance accepted by everyone, which has the undisputed political and social power to decide in case of conflict. In the roman world with an absolutistic monarch, this was the army. The only power more powerful than the emperor himself.

PS: It has to be the army. No way somebody else can be it in this absolutistic model. So my idea is, to get rid of the absolutistic system. As early in roman history as possible.

Well, there is another idea I have read about. It was called "Comitia Militaris" by a modern historian. But this worked just once after the death of Julianus iirc.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Well, there is another idea I have read about. It was called "Comitia Militaris" by a modern historian. But this worked just once after the death of Julianus iirc.

I'm assuming that means Assembly of the Military? So we're talking about establishing a system of co-emperors, where each is decided by an election by the military? This sounds like a fallback to the days of the republic, except the non-military citizenry have been deprived suffrage.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Well, there is another idea I have read about. It was called "Comitia Militaris" by a modern historian. But this worked just once after the death of Julianus iirc.

Do you mean the assembly of the highest generals electing the new emperor?

 

[darthfanta]

Regarding Chinese administration at the time,I don't think separation of military command and civilian governance was that clear cut yet.Grand Administrators of commandery still have control over the command of local troops.The commandant is himself a subordinant of the Grand Administrator.

An interesting thing is did the Severans start granting fiefs to their relatives to help control the provinces?Early Han dynasty consolidated the power of the Liu family by making family members Kings of distant hard to control regions.

 

[Agricola]

Do you mean the assembly of the highest generals electing the new emperor?

Yes, this happened sometimes. It worked after the death of Julianus for the election of Jovianus and Valentinianus I. But usually this model did not work. The major generals were scattered all over the empire. Just if the emperor died while leading a huge campaigning army, the most important officers were at one place.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Yes, this happened sometimes. It worked after the death of Julianus for the election of Jovianus and Valentinianus I. But usually this model did not work. The major generals were scattered all over the empire. Just if the emperor died while leading a huge campaigning army, the most important officers were at one place.

I think that, given the structure of the Principate, there is simply no other choice than traditional hereditary succession order.

 

[darthfanta]

Yes, this happened sometimes. It worked after the death of Julianus for the election of Jovianus and Valentinianus I. But usually this model did not work. The major generals were scattered all over the empire. Just if the emperor died while leading a huge campaigning army, the most important officers were at one place.

IIRC,in China during the Han Dynasty,unless there's a campaign,most of the higher ranking generals (the big shots of the army like the Generalissimo,the General of the Agile Cavalry and the General of the Chariots and Cavalry) are located in the capital along with most of the regular units of the army(the ones that are generally posted along the borders are lower ranking officers).Maybe something like that could be modeled.

 

[Agricola]

I think that, given the structure of the Principate, there is simply no other choice than traditional hereditary succession order.

I am afraid you are right. This was just an excursus. My initial point was, that in a perfect state, the class or part of the society, which really holds the power, decides about the government. Unfortunately in the roman empire this is the army. And this army inclines to decide by force of arms.

So a more solid /legitimated hereditary monarchy is perhaps the way to go. But it don't expect too much. Look at the Plantagenets and compare them with the also 300 years of roman principate. Hereditary monarchy could be even worse.

Furthermore a more solid succession does not avoid usurpations. It just avoids civil wars due to unclear succession. There are plenty of more important reasons for usurpations and civil wars.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Caput Vicesimus Quintus: The Persian Juggernaut
The Roman had been caught flat-footed. The governors of the east were well aware of the risk of a Persian attack; they feared it since the rise to power of the Sassanians. But they thought that they would have time to prepare for it – preparation was necessary because the legions of the east weren't united at one point, but scattered with hundreds of miles between them.
During the Lollian War, the Parthians had invaded Babylonia and destroyed the southern legions first. Subsequently, the northern legions stood no chance against the Parthians and had to retreat into Syria. The Romans knew their weakness, and the Persians knew it to, and Shapur was convinced that this weakness would help the Persians to win the war.

In 1014 AUC [1], Shapur I spread the rumor that he wanted to subdue the northern areas of his Empire. Even it this was true, it wasn't his priority. He mobilized his army and marched to the east to comfort the Romans; in February 1015 AUC [2] however, he left his camp in Persepolis with 75,000 soldiers, crossed Susiane and invaded the Roman Empire without a due declaration of war.
The Romans hadn't time to unite their southern and northern legions. The General of the southern Legions, C. Iunius Donatus, decided to stake everything on one card. He marched against Shapur I with troops inferior in numbers and risked to attack him on the river of the Tigris. Even if Donatus knew about the mobility of the Persian mounted archers, he acted offensively and carelessly. He risked everything and lost everything – his Mesopotamian legions were crushed and he committed suited.
The Persians gained a great moral boost by this victory. With the majority of the Roman troops in the east defeated, they were now able to occupy Babylonia, Mesopotamia and Assyria without major resistance. The only region resisting to the Persians was southern Babylonia, where the fleet of the Indian Company (Classis Persica) and the company's mercenaries patrolled on the Tigris' estuary.

Generally, the Indian Company played an important role during the First Persian War. Some of the ships of the company blockaded the Persian coast and heavily damaged the Persian trade and economy; other ships on the Euphrates and Tigris supplied the Roman cities with food and weapons, making it virtually impossible for the Persians to take besieged cities on the rivers.
Cities offside of rivers however had a much harder time, and little cities often surrendered because of Persian troops looting the surroundings. Also, some oriental cities often opened their gates to Persian troops, and committees consisting of Persians, Mesopotamians and Jews greeted the Persians as their new overlords.

One of these towns was Arbela, capital of Assyria. Roman and Greek colonists had discriminated against local peasants, who now hoped to get their revenge. Some Roman citizens were lynched, and most of them lost their land lots which were taken oven by local farmers. Shapur I allowed this to happen to gain the population's support – and even accelerated the process by nationalizing Roman land.
From his headquarter in Arbela, the Persian King of Kings directed the operations in the north of Mesopotamia. Once the most important places were occupied by Persians troops, Shapur sent 25,000 men to conquer and occupy first Thospia, then the rest of Armenia to secure the army's flank. Then, in September 1016 AUC [3], the main army left Assyria and entered Mesopotamia, taking Nisibis, Edesse, Carrhae, Samosata and the vital river crossing at Zeugma.

[1] 261 CE
[2] 262 CE
[3] 263 CE

Operations of the First Persian War (261 - 263)​

 

[Mrstrategy]

How many soldiers are left on the east to help against petsia?

 

[darthfanta]

I am afraid you are right. This was just an excursus. My initial point was, that in a perfect state, the class or part of the society, which really holds the power, decides about the government. Unfortunately in the roman empire this is the army. And this army inclines to decide by force of arms.

So a more solid /legitimated hereditary monarchy is perhaps the way to go. But it don't expect too much. Look at the Plantagenets and compare them with the also 300 years of roman principate. Hereditary monarchy could be even worse.

Furthermore a more solid succession does not avoid usurpations. It just avoids civil wars due to unclear succession. There are plenty of more important reasons for usurpations and civil wars.

I was under the impression that in addition to that,the unclear succession has got to do with the fact that most emperors were childless or don't have much children for some reason as well.

 

[Sceonn]

Couldn't a more meritocratic Rome use the carrot and stick approach to the problem using National service to deal with it?

If the government decides that to vote or be issued citizenship, Romans must serve the state in some capacity for a specific amount of years, depending on the service itself ranging from military service to postal service to working on a farm or infrastructure protect.

Those with citizenship from a region then can vote through their representative on the Senate.

Not a foul proof measure but would galvanize the citizenry from allowing a non-elected usurper to the Throne.

 

[darthfanta]

Couldn't a more meritocratic Rome use the carrot and stick approach to the problem using National service to deal with the problem?

If the government decides that to vote or be issued citizenship, Romans must serve the state in some capacity for a specific amount of years, depending on the service itself ranging from military service to postal service to working on a farm or infrastructure protect.

Those with citizenship from a region then can vote through their representative on the Senate.

Not a foul proof measure but would galvanize the citizenry from allowing a non-elected usurper to the Throne.

Rome has now become a legalist regime modelling itself on the Han Dynasty.Democracy is not an option.A possible way to prevent usurpations might be to neuter the army and introduced a themata/fubing system.Having a massive regular army like Rome is a huge drain on the empire,not to mention a potential source of usurpation.Apart from the Comitatus(which should be much more buffed up),most of the provincial forces should be troops that are part-time farmers.Rome is likely not in any position to expand any further,so while a themata/fubing system might not be efficient offensively,it should do the job well in defending the empire,but not enough to fight the professional comitatus.Successful Chinese dynasties like the Han Dynasty usually had a policy of "strengthening the tree trunk and weakening the branches" to prevent rebellion by the governors of the provinces.

 

[Sceonn]

Rome has now become a legalist regime modelling itself on the Han Dynasty.Democracy is not an option.A possible way to prevent usurpations might be to neuter the army and introduced a themata/fubing system.Having a massive regular army like Rome is a huge drain on the empire,not to mention a potential source of usurpation.Apart from the Comitatus(which should be much more buffed up),most of the provincial forces should be troops that are part-time farmers.Rome is likely not in any position to expand any further,so while a themata/fubing system might not be efficient offensively,it should do the job well in defending the empire,but not enough to fight the professional comitatus.Successful Chinese dynasties like the Han Dynasty usually had a policy of "strengthening the tree trunk and weakening the branches" to prevent rebellion by the governors of the provinces.

Rome can't do that though, Qin and Han has no enemies aside from the Xiongnu while Rome has entire populations ready to revolt should they smell blood. It needs it's huge armies and we've seen how the reduction or degradation of said huge armies had on the Empire. And the professional Army is what allows it it's edge over it's enemies.

 

[darthfanta]

Rome can't do that though, Qin and Han has no enemies aside from the Xiongnu while Rome has entire populations ready to revolt should they smell blood. It needs it's huge armies and we've seen how the reduction or degradation of said huge armies had on the Empire. And the professional Army is what allows it it's edge over it's enemies.

If the themata can fight the Arabs,the Bulgars etc well defensively,it will do with the Germans and the Persians.As for trouble spots like Judaea,Mesopotamia,Britannia and Hibernia,they can have the part-time troops and part of the regular army sent there.Military colonies can also be set up in the trouble spots to deal with the rebels.As for the Qin and Han having no enemies aside from Xiongnu,that is a misconception,the Han Dynasty had to frequently fight rebelling Qiang,tribes in modern day Korea and Southern China.Early Tang Dynasty and it's Northern Dynasty predecessors also dealt with rebellions and other enemies efficiently using part-time soldiers.

 

[Sceonn]

If the themata can fight the Arabs,the Bulgars etc well defensively,it will do with the Germans and the Persians.As for trouble spots like Judaea,Mesopotamia,Britannia and Hibernia,they can have the part-time troops and part of the regular army sent there.Military colonies can also be set up in the trouble spots to deal with the rebels.As for the Qin and Han having no enemies aside from Xiongnu,that is a misconception,the Han Dynasty had to frequently fight rebelling Qiang,tribes in modern day Korea and Southern China.Early Tang Dynasty and it's Northern Dynasty predecessors also dealt with rebellions and other enemies efficiently using part-time soldiers.

Military service would keep professionalism in the Army while also keeping the numbers up then. Since it's not democratic then it can simply be put into Law that serving for a number of years is mandatory.

Guess I'm just not sold on part time professionals. It'll easily degrade into feudal structure.