PC: A Roman Republic after Augustus

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Hi guys!

I have a question for you: How plausible is a republican renewal after Augustus? How probable is it to have a restoration of the Roman Republic during the Principate? And how can we achieve that?

Some clarifications: I know that the Romans called their state res publica even during the late Roman Dominate, so when I say Roman Republic, I mean res publica libera.

A restored Roman Republic would have to be ruled by the Senate (and the senatorial aristocracy), just like the original Roman Republic. An office like Emperor (Princeps) is possible, but only if the Emperor is closely supervised by the Senate. The political role of the people in such a state is uncertain, but I'm open for your ideas here.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/interauctoritas-et-renovatio-a-roman-tl.249126/

 

[DominusNovus]

Whistles inconspicuously... https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-rhōmaiōn-the-restored-roman-republic.386625/

I'm of the opinion that this is most likely during a nadir of Roman power, which both gives politicians room to reorganize the state, and time to adjust without the responsibility of running the entire empire, which necessitates conditions that are conducive to imperial government.

 

[Salvador79]

Possible, but no walk in the park.
Btw, why does it have to be Senate-ruled? In the old Republic, the Senate had rather informal power, and officially important institutions were the magistrates and the comitia.
The senatorial class melancholically mused about the restitutio, but it fared well under the Principate unburdened of its leadership responsibilities until the crisis of the 3rd century.
You want a res publica libera, think of a decentralised reconstitutio...!

 

[DominusNovus]

You know, that inspires me. Based on my suggestion that a crisis is needed, what if a new Roman Republic was formed in the crisis of the third century?

Rough idea: The Gallic Empire and/or Palmyrene Empire do better than historically, and one of them (I'm going with Palmyra) is able to to assert itself over the central faction, based out of Italy. Palmyra is not interested in relocating its capital to Rome; its a very eastern-oriented Empire. So, it puts Italy in the administration of the Senate, allowing them to govern it as they wish, so long as they're subordinate to the Palmyrene government, which is too far away to try to assert its will like the Emperors would even while leaving many provinces under Senatorial administrTion. More or less a vassal or buffer state between them and the Gallic Empire (maybe maintaining the fiction that both splinter states are simply protecting the interests of a united empire that is of course a Republic governed by a Senate, why just look at Italy!). The Senate manages to govern Italy well enough, reforming the system as best they can.

However, things eventually go south for Palmyra, and they can't cope with the Barbarians and the Sassanids, not to mention the Gallic Empire. They're overextended, and start to lose territory. The Italian Republic starts to fill the vacuum, and is able to restore the borders by the end of the 4th century.

Hmmm... nope, can't let myself be distracted from my timeline. But that does sound fun.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The Roman Republic was dead before Julius Caesar, and there really is no way to resurrect it after Augustus.

Could they come up with something with only passing resemblance that they pretended was a resurrected Republic? Maybe, but I've yet to see anything I'd consider plausible.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/interauctoritas-et-renovatio-a-roman-tl.249126/

Interesting TL, but already knew it.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The Roman Republic was dead before Julius Caesar, and there really is no way to resurrect it after Augustus.

Could they come up with something with only passing resemblance that they pretended was a resurrected Republic? Maybe, but I've yet to see anything I'd consider plausible.

Somewhere Erich Gruen is screaming.

 

[volantredx]

The issue with the Republic was that it really only existed because the pageantry of the Republic gave the concept weight. It prevented powerful men from simply doing away with the checks on their power. By the time Octavian came around all that had been stripped away. Rule by mob and rule by sword had long since been the way of things and few people alive remembered a time where rule by vote had any real meaning. This was not helped by the proscriptions that killed off all the Senators that might have pushed for real reform. The only real way to recreate the Republic would be if the Senate overthrew the next few emperors and reinstituted their role while denying power in the hands of any one man. After Caligula would be the best bet since he did a great job of showing why having one person with absolute power is a bad thing.

 

[Tripledot]

Augustus was sickly, right? Had he not been remarkably lucky, he could have died early into his reign, when people were alive that still remembered the Republic.

 

[volantredx]

Augustus was sickly, right? Had he not been remarkably lucky, he could have died early into his reign, when people were alive that still remembered the Republic.

IIRC he actually planned to die early and had like two or three heirs handpicked and trained to follow him, but they all died and he was stuck with Tiberius.

 

[Salvador79]

You know, that inspires me. Based on my suggestion that a crisis is needed, what if a new Roman Republic was formed in the crisis of the third century?

Rough idea: The Gallic Empire and/or Palmyrene Empire do better than historically, and one of them (I'm going with Palmyra) is able to to assert itself over the central faction, based out of Italy. Palmyra is not interested in relocating its capital to Rome; its a very eastern-oriented Empire. So, it puts Italy in the administration of the Senate, allowing them to govern it as they wish, so long as they're subordinate to the Palmyrene government, which is too far away to try to assert its will like the Emperors would even while leaving many provinces under Senatorial administrTion. More or less a vassal or buffer state between them and the Gallic Empire (maybe maintaining the fiction that both splinter states are simply protecting the interests of a united empire that is of course a Republic governed by a Senate, why just look at Italy!). The Senate manages to govern Italy well enough, reforming the system as best they can.

However, things eventually go south for Palmyra, and they can't cope with the Barbarians and the Sassanids, not to mention the Gallic Empire. They're overextended, and start to lose territory. The Italian Republic starts to fill the vacuum, and is able to restore the borders by the end of the 4th century.

Hmmm... nope, can't let myself be distracted from my timeline. But that does sound fun.

The Crisis of the Third Century opens up a lot more windows of opportunity, too. By then, the glamour of Augustus has long since peeled off, and imperial cult is degenerating into something highly dysfunctional provoking usurpations at the endangered frontiers. The rule of the sword is returning, in spite - or better: because - of the monarchical outlook of the Roman Empire.
People who saw this withdrew from politics and into transcendentalisms. Where some political spirit was still alive was in the military, of course. You could start from there. Potentially a sound basis, since the early Republic`s strength was exactly its being based on peasant-citizen-soldiers. By the 3rd century, citizenship has become universal. The military was the only institution in whose framework this could actually be experienced. Create a military democracy-aristocracy-mixed system, instead of a military anarchy!

 

[starman]

IIRC he actually planned to die early and had like two or three heirs handpicked and trained to follow him, but they all died and he was stuck with Tiberius.

Tiberius was said to be a "republican at heart" and wanted to give the senators more power, but dunno if that would've worked. Btw after Caligula died the senate debated about restoring the republic but the Praetorian Guard preempted that--assuming it was really feasible--by picking Claudius emperor.

 

[starman]

The Crisis of the Third Century opens up a lot more windows of opportunity, too. By then, the glamour of Augustus has long since peeled off, and imperial cult is degenerating into something highly dysfunctional provoking usurpations at the endangered frontiers. The rule of the sword is returning, in spite - or better: because - of the monarchical outlook of the Roman Empire.

I don't think so. Generally crises tend to increase authoritarianism, not diminish it, and this is exactly what happened in the third century, when the Dominate arose.

People who saw this withdrew from politics and into transcendentalisms. Where some political spirit was still alive was in the military, of course. You could start from there. Potentially a sound basis, since the early Republic`s strength was exactly its being based on peasant-citizen-soldiers. By the 3rd century, citizenship has become universal. The military was the only institution in whose framework this could actually be experienced. Create a military democracy-aristocracy-mixed system, instead of a military anarchy!

Anarchy is a stretch. I think people understood the empire needed strong leadership with even greater power, and this worked well enough from c 268-299.

 

[Salvador79]

Generally crises tend to increase authoritarianism, not diminish it, and this is exactly what happened in the third century, when the Dominate arose.
Anarchy is a stretch. I think people understood the empire needed strong leadership with even greater power, and this worked well enough from c 268-299.

As for the consequences of crises, I could easily give you dozens of counter-examples from modern history. In antiquity, it did seem to be the other way round, though, you`re right.
I think what is behind this phenomenon is perhaps a more general principle: in times of crisis, transformations can occur, and what shape these transformations will take or what principle they follow is greatly influenced by prevailing cultural attitudes towards politics, society, humankind and groups thereof (races, classes, nations) etc.
You are evidently right that OTL´s Crisis brought forth the Dominate.
What would be required to have the Crisis bring forth transformations in a different direction are divergences in the politco-cultural mindset in the first centuries CE. I´m aware of that.

Anarchy is, I think, an apt term for the frequent usurpations, secessions, and civil wars.

How did the end of the 3rd century "work well enough"? It established a completely inadequate economic policy as an answer to its economic crisis, so economic problems aggravated in the 4th and 5th centuries. It dabbled with divine emperorship. It froze social relations and positions, challenged traditional patronage-clientelism structures and required them to freeze, too, thereby laying the groundwork for the great politico-social disaster which would be called feudalism, and it combined this with bereaving the suffering urban structures of autonomous political relevance, which contributed even more to their demise and to the ruralisation. Basically, it kickstarted the Middle Ages. Barbarian hordes installing their own kingdoms one-and-a-half centuries later was just changing the lords then, every other meaningful aspect of Empire and Roman-ness had been self-deleted in the Diocletian Reforms.

 

[starman]

As for the consequences of crises, I could easily give you dozens of counter-examples from modern history.

I could give examples from modern history. The rise of Adolf owed much to the depression, to cite one example.

In antiquity, it did seem to be the other way round, though, you`re right.
I think what is behind this phenomenon is perhaps a more general principle: in times of crisis, transformations can occur, and what shape these transformations will take or what principle they follow is greatly influenced by prevailing cultural attitudes towards politics, society, humankind and groups thereof (races, classes, nations) etc.

I think crises spawn what is needed to deal with them, regardless of cultural attitudes. Augustus established the principate, not because Roman (republican) tradition favored such a thing but in spite of that. Times had changed, Rome was now an empire and Caesarism was needed to run it properly.

Anarchy is, I think, an apt term for the frequent usurpations, secessions, and civil wars.

From the point of view of internal political stability, the period from 235-284 wasn't really that bad except during the reign of Gallienus.

How did the end of the 3rd century "work well enough"?

Against external threats, and internal fragmentation.

It established a completely inadequate economic policy as an answer to its economic crisis, so economic problems aggravated in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Survival required higher military spending, which necessitated sacrifices. The Dominate might be likened to the USSR--economically challenged because of sacrifices.

It dabbled with divine emperorship.

That had been an approach, to some extent or other since the days of Augustus. It was a theoretical solution to the problem of instability. After the internal issues of c 260-68 I don't blame subsequent emperors for laying more emphasis on it.

It froze social relations and positions, challenged traditional patronage-clientelism structures and required them to freeze, too, thereby laying the groundwork for the great politico-social disaster which would be called feudalism, and it combined this with bereaving the suffering urban structures of autonomous political relevance, which contributed even more to their demise and to the ruralisation. Basically, it kickstarted the Middle Ages.

See e.g. Heather, who says the empire wasn't doing so badly economically in the latter 4rth century. The problem of runaway inflation had been rectified by then, and the coinage improved.

Barbarian hordes installing their own kingdoms one-and-a-half centuries later was just changing the lords then, every other meaningful aspect of Empire and Roman-ness had been self-deleted in the Diocletian Reforms.

It is true that the senatorial class, having been excluded from commands, tended to constitute a protofeudal elite. But the 4rth century Roman world, at least down to 363 or so, was still a far cry from the high medieval world, in western Europe. Lastly, the crumbling of empire IMO stemmed less from errors at the top than loss of citizen support.

 

[Salvador79]

I could give examples from modern history. The rise of Adolf owed much to the depression, to cite one example.

First of all, let me say that I enjoy this discussion with you a lot and that I don`t mean to be offensive when I disagree.

OK... so:
Yeah, and during the same crisis Spain and France spawned popular front governments with anarchists participating. No, even 1929 brought forth more reformist and revolutionary zeal than reactionary authoritarian leanings. In the US, the Red Decade followed; in the UK, Labour grew to such strength that even Churchill couldn`t help but include them in the wartime government. Where free elections were allowed, the 1930s and 1940s showed unprecedented success rates for the Left. Not everywhere, of course, but as a general tendency very much.

I think crises spawn what is needed to deal with them, regardless of cultural attitudes. Augustus established the principate, not because Roman (republican) tradition favored such a thing but in spite of that. Times had changed, Rome was now an empire and Caesarism was needed to run it properly.

Disagree. Often, crises just bring forth what accelerates a total collapse, too. No better case for that argument than Adolf!
The cultural attitude of the 1st century BCE was no longer republican. Strong men had been popular in Rome quite a while already. The trend was going towards autocracy for several centuries already, from India over Parthia to the Mediterranean. Half a millennium earlier, the trend had gone in the other direction, with democracies on the rise and monarchies crumbling: in Greece, in Rome, in Carthage, across India. But Augustus was three centuries after Alexander the Great, whom I´d consider quintesssential in turning the tide.

Survival required higher military spending, which necessitated sacrifices. The Dominate might be likened to the USSR--economically challenged because of sacrifices.

The Dominate may indeed be likened to the USSR: central planning plus authoritarianism running everything into the ground. As for survival, it wasn´t achieving much in this respect. Barbarian border raiding never ceased, and the Sassanids grew in strength, too. The downfall came when the barbarians were ready for it, which was a little later.

Lastly, the crumbling of empire IMO stemmed less from errors at the top than loss of citizen support.

Yup, agree. Small wonders, though, when society is organised in an authoritarian manner, participation is not offered, and most of the citizens are openly called "humiliores".

 

[starman]

First of all, let me say that I enjoy this discussion with you a lot and that I don`t mean to be offensive when I disagree.

Same here.

Yeah, and during the same crisis Spain and France spawned popular front governments with anarchists participating. No, even 1929 brought forth more reformist and revolutionary zeal than reactionary authoritarian leanings. In the US, the Red Decade followed; in the UK, Labour grew to such strength that even Churchill couldn`t help but include them in the wartime government. Where free elections were allowed, the 1930s and 1940s showed unprecedented success rates for the Left. Not everywhere, of course, but as a general tendency very much.

But even the Left, had it come to power, could've led to authoritarianism. Or provoked a right wing reaction with the same result.

Disagree. Often, crises just bring forth what accelerates a total collapse, too. No better case for that argument than Adolf!

Adolf made the right decision at times, goofed at other times but basically defeat stemmed from geopolitical accident--minimal resources compared to enemies. Btw much of the work of beating him was done by another authoritarian state, the USSR.

The cultural attitude of the 1st century BCE was no longer republican. Strong men had been popular in Rome quite a while already. The trend was going towards autocracy for several centuries already, from India over Parthia to the Mediterranean. Half a millennium earlier, the trend had gone in the other direction, with democracies on the rise and monarchies crumbling: in Greece, in Rome, in Carthage, across India. But Augustus was three centuries after Alexander the Great, whom I´d consider quintesssential in turning the tide.

Certainly circumstances were becoming ripe for authoritarianism, or demanding it. But I wouldn't say the attitude was no longer republican. Caesar openly ditched the republic and was murdered. Augustus more prudently tried to conceal his powers. Even Tiberius was said to be "republican at heart." And after the murder of the screwy caligula the senate debated restoring the republic. It seems the republican idea persisted for some time. But it just wasn't feasible anymore. The government which arose in a small city state just wasn't capable of running an empire, properly.

The Dominate may indeed be likened to the USSR: central planning plus authoritarianism running everything into the ground. As for survival, it wasn´t achieving much in this respect. Barbarian border raiding never ceased, and the Sassanids grew in strength, too.

The Dominate fared pretty well in its dealings with the Sassanids particularly. Look at the treaty of 299--what a reversal of the situation of c 260!! The strata Diocletiana (sp?) seems to have worked pretty well. Well into the fourth century, the northern barbarian problem wasn't as bad as it had been in the mid third century.

The downfall came when the barbarians were ready for it, which was a little later.

Barbarian power was essentially no stronger; the empire on the other hand was just weaker by then owing to an internal rot beyond its control.

Yup, agree. Small wonders, though, when society is organised in an authoritarian manner, participation is not offered, and most of the citizens are openly called "humiliores".

But this situation long predated the fatal weakening of empire which had set in by roughly 400 CE. The Dominate wasn't really all that different from the principate, which had more than adequate strength and support.

 

[Salvador79]

But this situation long predated the fatal weakening of empire which had set in by roughly 400 CE. The Dominate wasn't really all that different from the principate, which had more than adequate strength and support.

Hm, what exactly are you saying here - does the situation of lacking civic engagement and support long predate 400 CE, i.e. was it already a problem during the Principate?
Or did the Principate have more adequate strength and support?
I tend to the former...

 

[starman]

Hm, what exactly are you saying here - does the situation of lacking civic engagement and support long predate 400 CE, i.e. was it already a problem during the Principate?
Or did the Principate have more adequate strength and support?
I tend to the former...

I meant the Principate despite less civic engagement, and more authoritarian than the republic, still had adequate support as did the dominate until around the latter 4rth/fifth century.