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?
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.
But that wouldn't make the end of the empire. If anything, you could argue that was the start of the empire.
You could argue that.
But, I say that a series of military despots doesn't an empire make.
Or unmake - well, in and of itself.
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.
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.
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.
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.