Roman "Shogunate"

In the late Empire, the western half in particular, there were many generals who controlled young or weak emperors. Let's say that under the leadership of a series of Stilichos/Flavius Aëtiuses the Western Empire recovers. What would be some of the effects of an emperor so weak that the biggest "generalissimo" can effectively rule.

This could also be done by Odoacer choosing to keep Romulus Augustulus as Emperor and ruling from behind the throne, if he just decided to be a little bit more patient, and the ERE didn't object until he had solidified Romulus' (his) power.

What happens, if there's a technically legitimate, if weak Western Empire that consists of Italy and perhaps Sicily? How long can you see this "Roman Shogunate" lasting?
 

Delvestius

Banned
Only as long as the Franks will allow them to survive... Perhaps they may institute some form of tribute system, but it wouldn't be long before Italy is brought under the Frankish flag in this situation.
 
The real question is why? I think the reason for the Japanese Shogunate is that the position of Emperor was a difficult one to gain as a usurper. For any war Lord or usurper wishing to seize control it was better and safer to simply rule in his name with him as a figurehead rather than go against tradition by attempting to become an Emperor yourself. In the Roman Empire if you have seized control of the empire why not just make youself Emperor that's the traditional way of doing it anyway and that is hao the position was first formed so their is not likely to be any widespread revulsion at you doing so. What possible motivation for such a turn of events could their be?
 
The real question is why? I think the reason for the Japanese Shogunate is that the position of Emperor was a difficult one to gain as a usurper. For any war Lord or usurper wishing to seize control it was better and safer to simply rule in his name with him as a figurehead rather than go against tradition by attempting to become an Emperor yourself. In the Roman Empire if you have seized control of the empire why not just make youself Emperor that's the traditional way of doing it anyway and that is hao the position was first formed so their is not likely to be any widespread revulsion at you doing so. What possible motivation for such a turn of events could their be?

The Romans didn't take barbarian emperors well, which is why many assume Stilicho didn't take power.
 
The Romans didn't take barbarian emperors well, which is why many assume Stilicho didn't take power.
Pft. "Barbarian" wasn't even particularly pejorative. In fact, the martial connotations of barbarism provided the foundations for the Roman military's identity in the later Empire (one of the many reasons the army is incorrectly believed to have been primarily comprised of "ethnic" non-Romans). Shit, Roman aristocrats had a sort of "barbarian chic" style of clothing going from the mid-fourth century onward. "Barbarian" had a meaning simply too variable for it to meaningfully prevent Stilicho from having seized the office of emperor if he really really wanted to.

That's, of course, apart from the fact that men who were just as "barbarian" as Stilicho was had been Emperor before, most notably Maximinus I.
 
One of the things that doesn't help the case of a Roman "shogunate" is that the position of Emperor is not one that prevents actual power while being an important position. Especially since getting the Imperial title in the first place implied someone being strong enough to do so. Why be the power behind the throne...

when you can have the throne?
 
There is some difference between Roman Empire of the third century and Western RE of the fifth century.
It is surprising not to see a lot of people wishing to proclaim themselves emperors in the 5 cent A.D. And there was actually none among them of somewhat 'barbarian' origin.
I guess things changed during 200 years.

Maybe it was one of the reasons why WRE fell.
"Real" Romans who had the right to become an emperor did not have needed military experience. And for Romans of barbarian origin it was 'inappropriate' to be called 'emperors'.
They tried to experiment with a partnership of a puppet emperor and a barbarian 'shogun' but it did not work in the long run.
 
This would not be that hard to accomplish. If you did have a soldier/generals who could do this, and as a council administer the Empire, then possibly it could happen. However, it would lead to an earlier balkanization of Rome, like the warlords of Japan. It can work if you have a bunch of generals who's ambition is to make the Empire great, and not be selfish by declaring themselves Emperor and starting a civil war.
 
Top