Roman Senate = English Parliament?

[Agricola]

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

If you could explain your ideas a bit more, we could discuss them.

Actually, I am convinced, that a more stable government and better controlled government, which could avoid civil wars and some detrimental processes in society and economy, could help the roman empire to survive. Unfortunatley, it needs more to avoid civil wars in the 3rd century than just a better succession model. A succession model alone, might just prevent the first and second 4-emperor year, but not the mess after Severus Alexander.
The question is, which measures are needed and when is the window of opportunity to adopt them.

I guess the mid-, perhaps even the late-republic is one timeframe. I do not fully disagree, that it can't work during the early julio-claudian dynasty, but just with the massive help of a more republican minded princeps. Remember, Tiberius tried it half-heartedly and failed. And finally, if we look to the east-roman history, they implemented a more stable system. As Friell/Williams described in "The Rome that did not fall", they implemented a system, where central the top-clerks and officers elected a new emperor, if no heir available. This system wasn't perfect either, but it was one major reason why this Rome did not fall.

The challenge is not to explain, what was needed. The challenge is, to describe the transition. How to get there and why the romans, with their ancient mindset, would accept and actively support these measures. With romans I mean the 3 acceptance groups according to Egon Flaig ("Den Kaiser herausfordern"): the legions, the aristocrats/senate and the urban plebs. For later times add even the provinces.

 

[sunsurf]

In another thread on this board, somebody suggested Rome could do what China did--have a series of stable dynasties alternating with brief periods of civil war. So Alexander Severus has one strong male heir, he gives land in Germany to veterans, tolerates Christianity, his dynasty lasts until 300, Constantine is never born, the popes become like the eastern patriarchs, not very strong.
(Comparatively speaking).

I would like to ask about a timeline I'm developing, which uses this.
The system is still corrupt and liable to decay, so the empire shrinks anyway, and feudalism eventually emerges.

Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire wouldn't exist, the Roman Empire still occupies Italy. But other European powers emerge, and eventually the Roman Empire shrinks until it only consists of the city of Ravenna (Rome being too dirty and overcrowded).

Other microstates and city states have persisted, so I wonder if it would be too difficult to allow the "Roman Empire" to persist in the city of Ravenna to the present day.

Thanks.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

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

They already had such a man: Tiberius. Unfortunately when he tried to involve the Senate more in running the Empire, their response was basically "That's your job, not ours!", even when Tiberius upped sticks and moved to Capri. So in addition to having a republican-minded Princeps, you'd need a republican-minded Senate too, and I'm not sure how to bring that about. Maybe have the Principate arise earlier (with Sulla as Princeps, maybe?), so that the Senate's will won't have been so completely crushed by all the preceding proscriptions and civil wars.

 

[Yanez de Gomera]

I think that, as others have said, the power of the legions is a major factor hampering the developement of a "parliamentary" Roman Republic/Principate. As long as one was supported by the legions and especially the praetorians he had a rather big hold on power. The Senate would be placated with gifts and pomp or cowed by prescription lists and the like.

So to avoid this we should go back to the time of the Marian Reforms and the transformation of the citizen army into a professional one.
But how can we do this without butterflying away the Empire and therefore much of the roots of western civilisation?

Maybe there is a way to make the army controlled from a sort of bureaucracy and thus not steadily evolving into a private force? I am rather skeptical this would work, but I hope it could be a basis for discussion.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

They already had such a man: Tiberius. Unfortunately when he tried to involve the Senate more in running the Empire, their response was basically "That's your job, not ours!", even when Tiberius upped sticks and moved to Capri. So in addition to having a republican-minded Princeps, you'd need a republican-minded Senate too, and I'm not sure how to bring that about. Maybe have the Principate arise earlier (with Sulla as Princeps, maybe?), so that the Senate's will won't have been so completely crushed by all the preceding proscriptions and civil wars.

Don't have Augustus rule so goddamned long, and you might have a chance. If you have him live long enough to where Tiberius (or Drusus who may have even been more republican minded than his brother) become the heir. Even having Augustus die shortly after his grandsons' deaths in 4 AD (so 10 years less than OTL), might help.

Or alternatively, have him die in 23 AD. Perhaps a feud erupts over succession between Marcellus and Agrippa. One of them (pick your choice) agrees to concessions for bringing the senate more into the fold of administration and power. Or alternatively the Senate takes charge itself and puts forward a compromise candidate-Tiberius (through the intercession of Livia Drusilla perhaps). Though both Tiberius and Marcellus would be 19 at this point in time....so it would likely end up having to be Agrippa.


The principate was still young enough for this to be possible (remember, Augustus' second settlement didn't even come until after he recovered from the illness).

 

[SlyDessertFox]

So to avoid this we should go back to the time of the Marian Reforms and the transformation of the citizen army into a professional one.
But how can we do this without butterflying away the Empire and therefore much of the roots of western civilisation?

You might have to go back further. To the legiones cannanenses. The legions that lost at Cannae (and Herdonea and other battles) were sent to Sicily as punishment as many may know. The harsh treatment by the senate led them to start shifting their loyalties to the commanders who treated them better-such as Marcellus when he was in Sicily, and of course Scipio when he led them to redeem themselves in Africa.

There's a few more things you can do with a 2nd punic war POD: The amount of senators and other nobles killed and noble lines extinguished is just staggering for that war (though not surprising given how they often fought in the cavalry which was easy meat for Hannibal's horsemen). This allowed almost a power vacuum in the senate as over the next few decades new men started to fill the ranks-creating tension between the old guard and the new men and leading to the conflicts between populares and optimate. In addition, the damage to the countryside was devastating: It may have contributed to the ever increasing calls for citizenship for the Italian allies who no doubt bore the brunt of the scorched earth tactics, and certainly did lead to the swallowing up of small farms by large landholders leading to less men to serve in the legions, since they had to own property.


Really, the legacy of the 2nd Punic War is the downfall of the republic. Hannibal, in a way, did succeed in his goal of destroying it.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I think that, as others have said, the power of the legions is a major factor hampering the developement of a "parliamentary" Roman Republic/Principate. As long as one was supported by the legions and especially the praetorians he had a rather big hold on power. The Senate would be placated with gifts and pomp or cowed by prescription lists and the like.

So to avoid this we should go back to the time of the Marian Reforms and the transformation of the citizen army into a professional one.
But how can we do this without butterflying away the Empire and therefore much of the roots of western civilisation?

Maybe there is a way to make the army controlled from a sort of bureaucracy and thus not steadily evolving into a private force? I am rather skeptical this would work, but I hope it could be a basis for discussion.

Maybe if one Emperor, seeking to boost Rome's manpower reserves, orders that all citizens must perform some kind of national service for a couple of years, and then join their provincial militia until the age of fifty, that might help counteract the strength of the army. Not only would the military forces be less "institutionalised" due to the greater turnover, but in the event of a civil war it would be easier to retrain people for regular service than it would be to train men with no military experience whatsoever.

Of course, there's no guarantee that these people would support the Senate in any Senate vs. Emperor conflict, but it would be at least possible for them to arise as a potential countervailing power base to the legions and Praetorian Guards.

 

[Magnum]

Looking at this from a different angle, another moment where you could conceivably have the Senate assert itself is towards the dying days of the WRE. But more later...

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Looking at this from a different angle, another moment where you could conceivably have the Senate assert itself is towards the dying days of the WRE. But more later...

Hmm. With a weak child emperor, the Senate asserts its authority....that would make for an interesting development.

 

[Magnum]

Hmm. With a weak child emperor, the Senate asserts its authority....that would make for an interesting development.

OTL, as the empire shrank, the Italian senators saw that they were controlling a more or less constant piece of an ever shrinking pie, which made them proportionally more powerful.

They successfully managed to overthrow Valentinian III, they installed Petronius Maximus despite the army backing future emperor Majorian, and, after the former's death, confirmed the appointment of Avitus, a wealthy senator appointed Magister Militum by Petronius, whom they probably thought they could control or at least would look after their interest.

When however Avitus proved that he cared more about his own Romano-Gauls, appointing only such men in positions of power, the Senate was the driving force in having Avitus first disband his Visigothic guard, and then then in deposing him.

The new emperor Majorian did assert himself, but, when he was killed by Ricimer, the latter chose Libius Severus mainly to placate the Italian Senators.

Once Ricimer was finally out of the picture, his son Gundobad installed Glycerius, who was promptly deposed by Julius Nepos:

Glycerius' deposition was thus without any bloodshed, and historians investigated the possible reasons why the Western Emperor, who had Gundobad and his army at his command, did not try to resist. One possible reason is that Glycerius' elevation, not recognised by Eastern court, received the support of neither the Roman Senate nor the Gallic-Roman aristocracy; resisting Nepos without the support of the Senate would have been a bad choice for Gundobad.[13]

Then they may have been the cause of the downfall of Julius Nepos as well:

"This Orestes, having taken charge of the army and having departed from Rome against the enemies, arrived at Ravenna, and remaining there he made his son Augustulus emperor. When he learned this, Nepos fled to Dalmatia, and, deprived of his rule, he languished there as a private person, where the emperor Glycerius recently had obtained the see of Salona ("qui Orestes suscepto exercitu et contra hostes egrediens a Roma Ravenna pervenit ibique remoratus Augustulum filimum suum imperatorem efficit. quo conperto Nepus fugit Dalmatias ibique defecit privatus a regno, ubi iam Glycerius dudum imperator episcopatum Salonitanus habebat": Jordanes, Getica 241).

The Anonymous Valesianus suggests that the "enemy" sought by Orestes was none other than Nepos hlmself: "Soon Nepos arrived at Ravenna, pursued by the Patrician Orestes and his army. Fearing the arrival of Orestes, Nepos boarded a ship and fled to Salona" ("mox veniens Ravennam, quem persequens Orestes patricius cum exercitu, metuens Nepos adventum Orestis, ascendens navem fugam petit ad Salonam": 7.36 s.a.474).

The Auctuarii Hauniensis ordo prior adds a few twists of its own:
"While Nepos was in the city, the Patrician Orestes was sent against him with the main force of the army. But because Nepos dared not undertake the business of resisting in such desperate conditions, he fled to Dalmatia in his ships. When Nepos had fled Italy and departed from the city, Orestes assumed the primacy and all the authority for himself and made his son Augustulus emperor at Ravenna" ("Nepote apud urbem residente Orestes patricius cum robore exercitus contra eum mittitur. sed cum desperatae rei negotium resistendo sumere non auderet, ad Dalmatias navigiis fugit. cum Nepos fugiens Italiam ac urbem reliquisset, Orestes primatum omnemque sibi vindicans dignitatem Augustulum filium suum apud Ravennam positum imperatorem facit, ipse vero omnem curam externorum praesidiorum gerit": s.a.475; cf. Auctarii Hauniensis ordo posterior: "Nepos cum ab Oreste patricio cum exercitu persequeretur, fugiens ad Dalmatias usque navigavit": s.a.475).

If one accepts that in this passage the term "urbs" refers to Ravenna, and not, as is usually the case, to Rome, then it would seem once again that Nepos took refuge in Ravenna when faced by Orestes' revolt.
Other, briefer, sources provide a little clarification.

The Fasti vindobonenses priores, for example, confirm that Nepos took flight from Ravenna after the arrival of Orestes: "In this year, on 28 August, the Patrician Orestes entered Ravenna with his army and the emperor Nepos fled to Dalmatia" ("his cons. introivit Ravennam patricius Orestes cum exercitu et fugavit imp. Nepos ad Dalmatias V kl. Septemb.": no.615, s.a.475).

Jordanes says simply, "In the western empire, Orestes put the emperor Nepos to flight and established his own son Augustulus on the throne" ("parte vero Hesperia Nepotem imperatorem Orestes fugatum Augustulum suum filium in imperium conlocavit": Jordanes, Romana 344); and Count Marcellinus likewise recalled, "As soon as Nepos had been put to flight, Orestes set his son Augustulus on the throne" ("Nepote Orestes protinus effugato Augustulum filium suum in imperium conlocavit": Chron. s.a.475).

These accounts, taken together, raise more questions than they answer. Why did Nepos replace Ecdicius with Orestes, when the first move of the latter was to seize Ravenna and raise a pretender to the throne? Who were the "enemies" against whom Orestes was being sent (Jordanes)? Who "sent" Orestes against Nepos (Auctuarium Hauniensis)? In default of additional information, one can only speculate. One possible reconstruction might be that the Senate of Rome was up to its old tricks and, as in the days of Avitus (455-456), became involved in an insurrection against a foreign emperor. Like Avitus, Nepos retreated north and occupied Ravenna. He recalled Ecdicius from Gaul not in disgrace, but as support against a domestic rival, just as Anthemius had summoned Bilimer against Ricimer. After the loss of Ravenna, Nepos then fled the country, just as Avitus had done. Ecdicius, meanwhile, simply disappeared from history.

So it may have been the Senate that sent Orestes to fight Julius Nepos, so as to shake off control by the eastern court.

Later, they joined with Odoacer in making sure THEY were in control of things:

"When Augustus, the son of Orestes, heard that Zeno, having expelled Basiliscus, had again gained the kingship of the east, he caused the Senate to send an embassy to tell Zeno that they had no need of a separate empire but that a single common emperor would be sufficient for both territories, and, moreover, that Odovacar had been chosen by them as a suitable man to safeguard their affairs, since he had political understanding along with military skill; they asked Zeno to award Odovacar the patrician honor and grant him the government of the Italies. The men from the Senate in Rome reached Byzantium carrying these messages. On the same day messengers from Nepos also came to congratulate Zeno in the recent events concerning this restoration, and at the same time to ask him zealously to help Nepos, a man who had suffered equal misfortunes, in the recovery of his empire. They asked that he grant money and an army for this purpose and that he co-operate in his restoration in any other ways that might be necessary. Nepos had sent the men to say these things. Zeno gave the following answer to those arrivals and to the men from the Senate: the western Romans had received two men from the eastern Empire and had driven one out, Nepos, and killed the other, Anthemius. Now, he said, they knew what ought to be done. While their emperor was still alive, they should hold no other thought than to receive him back on his return. To the barbarians he replied that it would be well if Odovacar were to receive the patrician rank from the emperor Nepos and that he himself would grant it unless Nepos granted it first. He commended him in that he had displayed this initial instance of guarding good order, suitable to the Romans, and trusted for this reason that, if he truly wished to act with justice, he would quickly receive back the emperor [sc. Nepos] who had given him his positon of honor. He sent a royal epistle about what he desired to Odovacar and in this letter named him a patrician. Zeno gave this help to Nepos, pitying his sufferings because of his own, and holding to the principle that the common lot of fortune is to grieve with the unfortunate. At the same time Verina also joined in urging this, giving a helping hand to the wife of Nepos, her relative" (fr. 10: Gordon trans., pp.127-128).


This account again attests to the behind-the-scenes activities of the Senate of Rome, which, having instigated the exile of one emperor and the retirement of another, now was working hand-in-glove with Odovacar to keep imperial oversight at a safe distance.

Later, they become instrumental in the reigns of both Odoacer and of the Ostrogoths:

The authority of the senate rose considerably under barbarian leaders, who sought to protect the senate. This period was characterized by the rise of prominent Roman senatorial families, such as the Anicii, while the senate's leader, the princeps senatus, often served as the right hand of the barbarian leader. It is known that the senate successfully installed Laurentius as pope in 498, despite the fact that both King Theodoric and Emperor Anastasius supported the other candidate, Symmachus.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed

It was Justinians conquest that really brought them down. So, IMHO, with a somewhat different sequence of events prior to the deposition of Julius Nepos, or maybe even later, you could very well engineer a situation where the upward trend of the Senate is reinforced and it grows into a powerful and healthy institution akin to the English parliament. Some sort of equilibrium would have to come about between the eastern empire, the barbarian army, the church, and the senate.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Fascinating stuff. I knew the senate had become increasingly involved in throwing their weight around from the time of Stilicho really, but I didn't know to that extent. It would be interesting to see how it would work out in the long run.

 

[Maniakes]

A key difference between the English Parliament and the Principate Senate was that Parliament had an organic power base, while the Senate did not.

Prior to the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor Reforms, the King was dependent on the barons for military support, on the church for moral legitimacy and for administrative skill, and on the rural gentry and wealthy merchants for tax income and for secondary sources of military support. It is not a coincidence that it is these same interests who are represented in Parliament (the barons on the bishops in the House of Lords, and the Burgesses and the Knights of the Shires in the House of Commons).

The Tudor Reforms stripped the traditional nobility and the church of much of their former power, but transferred it to the emerging middle class, with urban militias replacing feudal levies as the backbone of the army, and with "new men" replacing the clergy in administrative positions. The middle class came to dominate the Commons, and many of their number were granted noble titles in the Stuart period and later.

In either period, though, a monarch who lost the support of the interests represented in Parliament was unable to rule effectively. See: John Lackland, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Charles I, Richard Cromwell, and James II.

The Senate in the Republican period did represent such a power base, being made up generally of the most powerful and respected citizens of the Republic, especially the heads of the major landed families that provided the backbone of the military and the early-to-mid Republic's major sources of income. Key factors in the fall of the Republic were the acquisition of an empire that overtook the Roman aristocracy as Rome's main source of government income, and the replacement of the traditional military loyal to the aristocracy with a professional military loyal to its generals. The center of power of the Roman state shifted away from the interests represented in the Senate, and it was that shift itself that nerfed the Senate's power and prevented the Senate from reasserting itself.

To make the Senate a real power within the Empire, the Emperors would have to reform the system to change the composition of the Senate to reflect the basis of power in the Empire.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

To make the Senate a real power within the Empire, the Emperors would have to reform the system to change the composition of the Senate to reflect the basis of power in the Empire.

I'm really starting to believe more and more now along the lines of Magnum. The best chance for the senate to regain its power is during the late western empire, if the western empire could survive through the period.

 

[Timmy811]

They already had such a man: Tiberius. Unfortunately when he tried to involve the Senate more in running the Empire, their response was basically "That's your job, not ours!", even when Tiberius upped sticks and moved to Capri. So in addition to having a republican-minded Princeps, you'd need a republican-minded Senate too, and I'm not sure how to bring that about. Maybe have the Principate arise earlier (with Sulla as Princeps, maybe?), so that the Senate's will won't have been so completely crushed by all the preceding proscriptions and civil wars.

That was a long time ago, but I believe I had Drusus the Elder and his son Germanicus in mind when I wrote that.

 

[Magnum]

One option would be an alternate Gothic War, where the ERE concentrates all its forces in Illyria, forgoing the OTL southern push of Belisarius, and methodically advances up the coast. The Goths fight back effectively, and its years before they're finally defeated, their population basically neutralized in the fighting that ravages northern Italy. However, the eastern Romans themselves receive a rude surprise when the Franks invade and defeat the, albeit barely.

This creates a sort of power vacuum on the peninsula, as well as an incentive for the senators to band together and repulse the extremely weakened Franks. Thus, they each raise as large a retinue as possible, and through luck and homeground advantage repulse the Franks. Throw in a civil war in the east just to make sure, and suddenly the Senate is master of its own fate, with each senatorial family having its own mini-army

 

[Agricola]

To make the Senate a real power within the Empire, the Emperors would have to reform the system to change the composition of the Senate to reflect the basis of power in the Empire.

A pertinent observation so far.

But how should this happen? Aside from the emperor the power was now with the legates of the legions and later in the principate with some high central clerks additonaly. If there was any power beside the emperor at all.

But, as soon as a legate leaves his army and becomes a senator, he looses his power. You know, a lot of senators have been ex-legates anyways. How should your senate look like? Who should be in? And why is the emperor dependent on them?

The situation in England was indeed fully different. The parliament was born and grown in a feudal system. With very first roots in the Magna Charta centuries ago. As in other european nations, parliaments developed during an organic, and I like to add, often very bloody process over centuries.

 

[Maniakes]

A pertinent observation so far.

But how should this happen? Aside from the emperor the power was now with the legates of the legions and later in the principate with some high central clerks additonaly. If there was any power beside the emperor at all.

But, as soon as a legate leaves his army and becomes a senator, he looses his power. You know, a lot of senators have been ex-legates anyways. How should your senate look like? Who should be in? And why is the emperor dependent on them?

The situation in England was indeed fully different. The parliament was born and grown in a feudal system. With very first roots in the Magna Charta centuries ago. As in other european nations, parliaments developed during an organic, and I like to add, often very bloody process over centuries.

I agree. My post was intended more to point out the problems in re-establishing Senatorial rule than to suggest a way to do it. In addition to the problems you highlight, it would be pretty foolish for an Emperor to pick out a group of people who collectively have the ability to break him, put them in the same room, and tell them to work together.

It worked in England because England was a lot smaller and the military leaders more secure in their control of their power bases, so barons could come to Westminster or Oxford for a session of Parliament then go home and still be barons, while a legionary legate couldn't come to Rome to become a Senator without ceasing to be a legionary legate; because England was bottom-up from the beginning (first a union of the Anglo-Saxon petty kingdoms, then a coalition of Norman barons under William the Conqueror), so Parliament only had to meet once every few years to be relevant in the context of national governance, and so Kings needed something like Parliament to get enough buy-in from their subjects to exert meaningful control over the country.

I suppose a Senate-like institution might emerge as a tool to reconstitute the core of the Empire after a collapse that devolved effective authority to local leaders, but it'd take a very specific level of collapse to decentralize the Empire without either breaking it entirely or leaving it preserved only by a strongman ruthlessly re-centralizing it (like Diocletian IOTL). The discussion upthread of the Senate briefly acting as a semi-government over the Barbarian successor states following the collapse of the WRE is pretty close to this idea.