Preservation of the Roman empire thesis

On the subject of Maurice and Phocas, if Phocas hadn't overthrown Maurice, how do you think his plan to divide the Empire between his sons would have played out?
 
On the subject of Maurice and Phocas, if Phocas hadn't overthrown Maurice, how do you think his plan to divide the Empire between his sons would have played out?

I'm not sure in practise he'd actually have done it. But it'll probably end in the sons ruling weak Western provinces being forced to acknowledge Maurice's eldest son Theodosius, who'd presumably rule the entire Eastern Empire, as the senior Augustus or risk annihilation.
 
You're suggesting that the regime of Augustus was anything other than autocratic- that to the millions of provincials at the time of the birth of Christ Augustus was anything other than their Basileus?

I'm suggesting that, during the Principate, the Emperors generally maintained some sense of limited civil government and cooperation (admittedly, co-opting them as well) with the Republican institutions. After 235, that pretty much went out the window and it was pure autocracy.
 
I'm suggesting that, during the Principate, the Emperors generally maintained some sense of limited civil government and cooperation (admittedly, co-opting them as well) with the Republican institutions. After 235, that pretty much went out the window and it was pure autocracy.

But that wouldn't make the end of the empire. If anything, you could argue that was the start of the empire.
 
The constant civil wars, disruption of trade, debasement of the currency, destruction of the remains of constitutional law that happened due to those despots does.

But those are less a matter of autocracy and more a matter of instability and/or incompetent rulers.

And maybe it's my prejudices as a monarchist, but "destruction of the remains of constitutional law" really doesn't belong in the same category as disruption of trade and debasement of currency.
 
But those are less a matter of autocracy and more a matter of instability and/or incompetent rulers.

And maybe it's my prejudices as a monarchist, but "destruction of the remains of constitutional law" really doesn't belong in the same category as disruption of trade and debasement of currency.

All facets of the same problem.
 
All facets of the same problem.

Speaking for myself, I think - laying aside issues of what's right and wrong for discussion's sake - there's a considerable difference between policies and problems from weakness, and policies and problems from autocracy.

The Byzantine era (Heraclius to Constantine XI) is strongly autocratic, but strong emperors and "civil war, disruption of trade, and debasement of the currency" are largely incompatible in that period. You get the last three when there isn't a strong hand at the helm, not from a general who fancies he looks good in purple.

This may not be as true in 235-476ish, but I don't see why it would happen that way.
 
Speaking for myself, I think - laying aside issues of what's right and wrong for discussion's sake - there's a considerable difference between policies and problems from weakness, and policies and problems from autocracy.

The Byzantine era (Heraclius to Constantine XI) is strongly autocratic, but strong emperors and "civil war, disruption of trade, and debasement of the currency" are largely incompatible in that period. You get the last three when there isn't a strong hand at the helm, not from a general who fancies he looks good in purple.

This may not be as true in 235-476ish, but I don't see why it would happen that way.

Allow me to clarify. Autocracy with hereditary legitimacy, along the lines of the Byzantines, does not inherently lead to those situations. I'm talking about Autocracy without that legitimacy. During the principate, the Emperors, while effectively autocratic, ultimately relied on the legitimacy endowed by their cooperation with the Senate (more importantly, the aristocracy in general). When the barracks Emperors ruined that balance, there was nothing to really hold the rest together.
 
Allow me to clarify. Autocracy with hereditary legitimacy, along the lines of the Byzantines, does not inherently lead to those situations. I'm talking about Autocracy without that legitimacy. During the principate, the Emperors, while effectively autocratic, ultimately relied on the legitimacy endowed by their cooperation with the Senate (more importantly, the aristocracy in general). When the barracks Emperors ruined that balance, there was nothing to really hold the rest together.

That I will agree with.

Maybe "hereditary" is a strong word - there were coups and so on - but there was still a royal (in the sense, kingly/of kings) foundation for the Byzantine era, and the law generally backed up the imperial position.

In part because the Emperors wrote it, but still, the result is that there was something for autocracy to stand on.
 
That I will agree with.

Maybe "hereditary" is a strong word - there were coups and so on - but there was still a royal (in the sense, kingly/of kings) foundation for the Byzantine era, and the law generally backed up the imperial position.

In part because the Emperors wrote it, but still, the result is that there was something for autocracy to stand on.

I didn't particularly like the word hereditary myself, but it served the purpose well enough. The point being, of course, that simply taking your frontier army and marching on the capital was not enough to become Emperor by that time.

Even though, ultimately, the Byzantine Emperors probably had more autocratic control over their realm than the 3rd-4th century Roman Emperors did.
 
I didn't particularly like the word hereditary myself, but it served the purpose well enough. The point being, of course, that simply taking your frontier army and marching on the capital was not enough to become Emperor by that time.

Even though, ultimately, the Byzantine Emperors probably had more autocratic control over their realm than the 3rd-4th century Roman Emperors did.

Probably. They had an administration actually able to extend meaningful authority from the center into the provinces.
 
I didn't particularly like the word hereditary myself, but it served the purpose well enough. The point being, of course, that simply taking your frontier army and marching on the capital was not enough to become Emperor by that time.

Even though, ultimately, the Byzantine Emperors probably had more autocratic control over their realm than the 3rd-4th century Roman Emperors did.

well yeah. The emperor was considered gods messenger on earth by the eastern romans. But the emperors were sometimes autocrats other times not. For example Basil tried being an autocrat in his war against the nobility that wasnt listening to him, or Nikephoros II Phokas given that they generally opposed too much centralization,on the other hand the angelii who basically held no real power in the empire which was split among different groups that were formed form the military and civil aristocracies and earlier Alexius Komnenos took power because he had the backing of the military aristocracy. Or the doukids and the rise and dominance of the civil aristocracy after the death of Isaac Komnenos and then later Romanos Diogenes being overthrown.

Therefore while Elfwine is right that they had more control than the roman emperors, some of the eastern roman emperors in fact had little to no control given the affairs were run by the aristocracy. The only place where they had absolute power in general was when it dealt with foreign policy and even then they didn't have absolute control over the army. Look what happened to poor diogenes at Manzikerrt he got betrayed by Doukas and thus got crushed by the turks.
 
Top