Roman Senate = English Parliament?

[DominusNovus]

How could a situation whereby the Roman Senate takes on the role that the English Parliament had, to varying degrees: a check on the monarch on behalf of the upper class and gentry?

I think one of the main problems with such a scenario is that during the Empire, there never was much of a separation of powers, due in large part to the Roman insistence that they weren't a monarchy. They'd more or abandoned the idea of separate powers for the executive and legislature, just dividing them (or not) as seen fit at the time.

So, ironically, it might have been the insistence that Rome was still a Republic that prohibited a vital feature of republics, even in nominal monarchies: a balance of powers.

 

[Elfwine]

Did the Romans even have the concept of "a separation of powers" being a good thing in the sense that developed in the 17th(?) century OTL?

I know they tried to avoid concentrating power in any one man prior to the Principes, but that's not the same as the idea that government should be organized that no one branch of executive/legislature/judicial is dominant.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Did the Romans even have the concept of "a separation of powers" being a good thing in the sense that developed in the 17th(?) century OTL?

I know they tried to avoid concentrating power in any one man prior to the Principes, but that's not the same as the idea that government should be organized that no one branch of executive/legislature/judicial is dominant.

In a way yes. The Senate wasn't technically a legislative body. The tribunes would propose legislation, the assemblies vote on them. Tribunes or consuls could veto them, and of course the Senate could put their weight behind a side. The assemblies could also overrule the Senate.

So I guess they had a very convoluted separation of powers.

 

[HistorianofAlt]

I think that part of the reason this wouldn't work is actually the office of Principes and its lack of a conciseness for succession. In Rome, the office was passed by inheritance, purchase, and frequent military coup. Because of this, every senator could secretly dream of becoming the principes and thus they had no incentive for limiting the office's power.

On the other hand, England had a solid understanding that they were a monarchy with a long tradition of primogeniture succession. Everyone knew who could and could not hope to become the king. Succession wars only broke out when the main royal line died out and the wars were between cadet branches or between dukes with recorded royal blood. Since the nobles knew they could never become King, they had incentive to band together and put the pressure on the king to protect their interests.

Yet another problem, although hardly insurmountable, lies in the history of the two political bodies. The Roman Senate was historically more of a board of directors for a company than a legislative body for a country as we would think of it. The Consuls could be better thought of as CEOs chosen by the board than Prime Ministers chosen by their government's legislative body. When Augustus created the office of Principes he masterfully created the illusion that he had merely extended the term of office for the consul and made it appear that he was merely allowed to hold a few more offices than earlier consuls.

Parliament on the other hand evolved more like a union of nobles. The Norman lords of England used the defunct Anglo-Saxon assemblies as their justification to meet and deal with the King as a group instead of individually. It was collective bargaining with swords instead of signs. A massive amount of parliament's strength rested in the fact that the King needed the nobles to raise his army and they could turn that army against him if he didn't appease them.

 

[Michael B]

When Augustus created the office of Principes he masterfully created the illusion that he had merely extended the term of office for the consul and made it appear that he was merely allowed to hold a few more offices than earlier consuls.

A massive amount of parliament's strength rested in the fact that the King needed the nobles to raise his army and they could turn that army against him if he didn't appease them.

The Emperor did not need the support of the senate to raise an army, the King did. Thus, if the senate gets out of line, the Emperor sends the boys in to sort them out. If the KIng does that he is the one who gets sorted out And I don't just mean Charles I. Edward II, James II and John were also disciplined by Parliament.

If the Senate could have essentially disarmed the Emperor then they might have been able to reassert themselves. What with Imperial provinces though this is unlightly.

 

[Hoist40]

The English Parliament was powerful since it controlled much of the money the King needed

The Roman Senate after Augustus took power had no money and no power. That is how Augustus took power without having taken the title of king or emperor, he controlled the money even the money that was theoretically the Senates

To have the Roman Senate have power it would need its own source of money. Possibly keeping control of at least some of the wealthier provinces. Maybe have control of Egypt and the food supply?


Edit added

Also there was no British Army until 1707 and military force was more fragmented which meant that the King was not the only one with military forces. Rome had a central Army nominally under the Senate but actually under Caesar.

Maybe a system where Roman military legions built up by cities or provinces and so having more divided loyalties which the Senate could exploit might help. Rome being the largest city would have the most legions and the Senate could take advantage of that along with other legions based on the Italian cities

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Maybe have control of Egypt and the food supply?

There's a reason Augustus treated Egypt as his personal property and made sure no senator was allowed to enter it unless given his permission. There was no way this was going to happen.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

There's a reason Augustus treated Egypt as his personal property and made sure no senator was allowed to enter it unless given his permission. There was no way this was going to happen.

That depends on the Emperor and his position relative to Senate. Emperors did get overthrown sometimes.

There were a few OTL weak emperors. Nerva. Severus Alexander.

But Senate was not in a very good position to assert power with respect to legions - or even praetorians. NOT because Senate did not have formal authority over either - that could have been reformed, and whenever an emperor was removed, his command did not exist. But the problem was that the public opinion of neither legions nor praetorians liked being commanded by Senate. If the Emperor was unpopular/weak, then the Praetorians and/or legions would mutiny, and the result would be a stronger Emperor who could overrule Senate. (Even Vitellius who was weak nevertheless owed his post to legions not Senate).

Senate tried to restore republic in 41 (result - Senators proposed themselves as Emperor, and Praetorians declared Claudius). The first time Senate did succeed in installing an Emperor was in 96 (and Nerva had problems with Praetorian mutiny). Second Emperor chosen by Senate was Pertinax, and he did not last three months (and the Praetorians went on to auction the Empire).

So... suppose the conspirators in 41 succeed in killing Claudius as well.

Who will Praetorians rally to?
Who will Senate elect?
Would Senate in 41 get Praetorians to acquiesce in Senate´s arrangements for power?

 

[caliburdeath]

What if you had something where the general method of picking the emperor was senatorial election?

 

[Ramso]

Sometimes I forget the Roman Senate existed after Octavian.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

What if you had something where the general method of picking the emperor was senatorial election?

Technically, this was what was in place. The Senate had to approve of the new emperor by conferring the powers of the previous one onto him. In theory, they could refuse and choose someone more to their liking. In reality though...

I don't know how you would make that stick. Augustus made sure Senatorial provinces didn't have legions for a reason.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Technically, this was what was in place. The Senate had to approve of the new emperor by conferring the powers of the previous one onto him. In theory, they could refuse and choose someone more to their liking. In reality though...

I don't know how you would make that stick. Augustus made sure Senatorial provinces didn't have legions for a reason.

Disassembling the powers of the Emperor would take some arranging in the first place.

There were a bunch of Emperors who did not stick. Galba, Otho, Vitellius, count in Nerva as well, then Pertinax, Didius Julianus...

Nerva basically had to adopt Traianus because Traianus was popular with the army while Nerva lacked the support of the army and was threatened by mutinies. Well, Nerva also considered Publius Cornelius Nigrinus.

What if Nerva sometime in 97 ran an election in Senate between Nigrinus and Traianus? Who would win? And what would the effect of the precedent be?

 

[ManintheField]

The Emperor did not need the support of the senate to raise an army, the King did. Thus, if the senate gets out of line, the Emperor sends the boys in to sort them out. If the KIng does that he is the one who gets sorted out And I don't just mean Charles I. Edward II, James II and John were also disciplined by Parliament.

If the Senate could have essentially disarmed the Emperor then they might have been able to reassert themselves. What with Imperial provinces though this is unlightly.

This kind of plays into why the imperial succession was so unstable: The Emperor was who the Senate said the Emperor was, but ultimately any military strongman who could show up and threaten the Senators with enough force could make them proclaim him Emperor.

If you sort out the military issue the Roman Empire becomes a kind of elective monarchy, where the Senate chooses someone to be Emperor and that choice is final

 

[DominusNovus]

Did the Romans even have the concept of "a separation of powers" being a good thing in the sense that developed in the 17th(?) century OTL?

I know they tried to avoid concentrating power in any one man prior to the Principes, but that's not the same as the idea that government should be organized that no one branch of executive/legislature/judicial is dominant.

It didn't line up perfectly to Anglo-American ideas of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, but the Romans had Imperium (military authority), Potestas (magisterial authority), and Auctoritas (advisory authority). But the idea of keeping these powers uniformly divided did not exist. Portions of each were divided amongst various branches of the government to balance the others out.

 

[DominusNovus]

Severus Alexander.

I would dispute Alexander Severus being a weak Emperor. He was actually shaping up to be an excellent Emperor, with a cabinet of brilliant statement. He just had two huge military blunders that cut his career (and life) short.

 

[Agricola]

I doubt a constitutional monarchy like in England could work in Rome. Looking to roman history: constitution is whats enforceable!

During early- and mid-republic there were no opportunities to enforce that much against the uncodified roman constitution. The roman aristocracy was pretty balanced in wealth and power and nobody could enforce anything against them. Of course every magistrate could, but just for one year and afterwards his career was stonedead.

Actually the roman republic was a kind of "Controlled Monarchy". Polybius called it the perfect mix of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. The roman magistrates had basically full monarchic power. They were executive, legislative and jurisdiction in one person. When the romans dethroned their last king, their first action was to elect one praetor who ruled like a king, but just for one year. Later the magistrate became more diversified. But the idea of united monarchic power was still in place. A roman "imperium" or "provincia" is a very strong duty. Especially if you look to the power of a proconsul.

Of course inside Rome power was divided amongst Consules, Praetores, Aediles, Quaestores and even the Vigintisexviri. But all of them had the executive, legislative and jurisdictional power for their area of competence to a certain extent, e.g. the most new laws in a modern sense were mostly introduced by the edicts of the praetors without the comitia. And Aediles had jurisdictional power, too. The idea was, that a magistrate gets the order to do everything, what is needed to do the job for one year.

Also the comitia had legislative and juridictional power. But just partially because they had no right to promote a bill. The only instance without any power was the senate. Theoretically just a group of advisors. However, as long as their auctoritas was balanced, they ruled the state and this crazy system of the roman republic worked.

The power was limited by annuity and intercessio/veto of a colleague or a tribune. I doubt, that the modern idea of separation of power between executive, legislative and jurisdiction was part of the roman mindset. Of course we could speculate about division of power and a better control of magitrates and even control of the princeps in a different kind of republic. But we should not think in these modern categories. Because the romans were not able to think in these categories.

 

[DominusNovus]

I agree that the idea fits even worse for the Republic itself.

 

[Agricola]

The problem is, that the principate evolved from the republic.

Due to this republican mindset and the idea of undivided monarchic power, the consequence has to be an absolutistic monarchy. I know, the roman principate is not fully comparable to the modern absolutistic monarchies. Thats why we call it a principate.

The roman republic failed, when the power amongst the roman aristocracy became unbalanced. It became unbalanced due to the increasing wealth after the punic wars and the following exapnsion. Latest since Sulla, it was obvious, that it was possible to transfer wealth into power by controlling legions and provinces in the new system of reformed legions after Marius and the new system of province adminstration.

The legions saw themselves as clients, like most romans were clients of an aristocratic family. Therefore the roman legionairs were strong believers in inherited power. Usually the legions supported the heir of the emperor, if there was one. Augustus had nothing initially but his name as the new patron of the family: Gaius Julius Caesar!

What I like to say is: as soon as one of these potentates which arose in the late republic, had won against all others, there was no way to control him anymore or enforce any separation of power or control mechanisms.

Perhaps an opportunity to reform the republic is to find a way, how these potentates rule the state in a balanced way amongst a few oligarchs. And not the entire aristocracy anymore. In this case, you might end up with a princeps too after a while. But with a much better controlled one.

The republic would need a military reform and a reform of provincial administration urgently. Best before Sulla or even better before Marius. And thats just two of many reforms needed. I doubt the romans were aware of this problem. Just look at Cicero, he thought, that all whats needed are better laws.

 

[DominusNovus]

But there's more to the Roman Empire than the Principate. You have a near century of little more than a military junta, then a divine right autocracy for the next millennium or so.

 

[Timmy811]

I think that part of the reason this wouldn't work is actually the office of Principes and its lack of a conciseness for succession. In Rome, the office was passed by inheritance, purchase, and frequent military coup. Because of this, every senator could secretly dream of becoming the principes and thus they had no incentive for limiting the office's power.

On the other hand, England had a solid understanding that they were a monarchy with a long tradition of primogeniture succession. Everyone knew who could and could not hope to become the king. Succession wars only broke out when the main royal line died out and the wars were between cadet branches or between dukes with recorded royal blood. Since the nobles knew they could never become King, they had incentive to band together and put the pressure on the king to protect their interests.

It doesn't take too many changes for the Julio-Claudian dynasty to establish a solid dynasty, complete with man who respected the Senate.