The Second Roman Republic established in 27 BC

[jkay]

Actually, some threads have proposed IMHO viable ways of keeping the Republic. My favorite, because I suggested it ;-) is to have Marius come up with a more viable patch, having the state deliver money via impersonal paymasters to the new masses of legionnaires he made possible instead of individual soldiers. (sorry - waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too tired to search for it).
f
Another approach, which I don't think got far, seemed to be going along the road of party armies, or maybe having somebody different solve the constitutional problem (maybe the way I suggested?). Still another idea I've had but am unlikely to write is to have the Republic refounded by refugees somewhere isolated.

Successful reform is always slow and gradual, one issue at a time. The American electorate has broadened unbelievably since its start of property owning white men, but if you'd proposed a bill to do that ALL in the First Congress, you would not've been taken seriously, to say the least. You'd only see a refounded Republic start with the minimal changes seen to be needed to save it from a repetition of its failure.

Yeah, Claudius strikes me as one of the better possibilities, though, as a warnign, ISTR he has to find a way away from the domination of his imperial guard.

The Republic wasn't headed toward democracy; democracy per se had been discredited in Rome, for several possible reasons. It started as an oligarchic, elitist state, and stayed that way in its heart. BUT. By the end, really, it was trying to be a little bit of EVERYTHING, to get the advantages of everything. In addition to the oligarchic Senate, it included a kind of democracy and had a popularly elected executive. The numbers of institutions it had by its fall was simply crazy, but it worked century after century, far better than the Empire ever did, until that idiot Marius bungled it. And, yes, you had to be from the city-state of Rome to participate in anything. Good luck!

 

[Don_Giorgio]

The Republic wasn't headed toward democracy; democracy per se had been discredited in Rome, for several possible reasons. It started as an oligarchic, elitist state, and stayed that way in its heart. BUT. By the end, really, it was trying to be a little bit of EVERYTHING, to get the advantages of everything. In addition to the oligarchic Senate, it included a kind of democracy and had a popularly elected executive. The numbers of institutions it had by its fall was simply crazy, but it worked century after century, far better than the Empire ever did, until that idiot Marius bungled it. And, yes, you had to be from the city-state of Rome to participate in anything. Good luck!

Indeed the Romans were happy enough to call their state a Republic although it was nothing more than a crowned Republic (something similar to medieval Venice)
As long as the Emperor doesnt call himself King (a sacrilegious act in the Roman eyes) he was free to act as one... Republic started dying during Sulla, was legally dead after Augustus (only the name was retained) and was finished off by Diocletian... IMO there was no way of resurrecting it...
Byzantines considered switching to a Republic in 9th century (actually it was more like a threat by Emperor Staurakios if they didnt accept his wife Theophano as Empress and his successor) but a quick and silent coup d'etat forced him to abdicate and the idea was forgotten...

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Actually, some threads have proposed IMHO viable ways of keeping the Republic. My favorite, because I suggested it ;-) is to have Marius come up with a more viable patch, having the state deliver money via impersonal paymasters to the new masses of legionnaires he made possible instead of individual soldiers. (sorry - waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too tired to search for it).
f
Another approach, which I don't think got far, seemed to be going along the road of party armies, or maybe having somebody different solve the constitutional problem (maybe the way I suggested?). Still another idea I've had but am unlikely to write is to have the Republic refounded by refugees somewhere isolated.

What about when the original Roman King was overthrown? What if someone then introduced a more robust Constitution with increased checks and balances?

Another idea is what about the German Barbarians founding a new Republic, alot of them admired Roman Civilization, perhaps if a civilized barbarian were to take over Rome and then found a Second Republic giving equal weight to Germans and Romans and having a Barbarian Army using Roman methods to back it up.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

What about when the original Roman King was overthrown? What if someone then introduced a more robust Constitution with increased checks and balances?

Another idea is what about the German Barbarians founding a new Republic, alot of them admired Roman Civilization, perhaps if a civilized barbarian were to take over Rome and then found a Second Republic giving equal weight to Germans and Romans and having a Barbarian Army using Roman methods to back it up.

Again the Romans didnt had a written constitution... They had the "mos maiorum"... something like todays UK...
Mos maiorum was the basic guidelines for the state and they could be interprete it in many ways... and they were mostly interpeted in a way that fitted someone... Augustus wouldnt had to rewrite it (rewrite what? some oral guidelines and customs?) in order to fit him... He just interpeted it in his own way to serve his interests...
As for the Barbarians... Rome was sacked by Gauls in 380 BC and was sacked again in 410 AD by Goths... After the Gauls left Romans made it clear that NONE would ever do that again... Plus Roman populace would have never accepted barbarians as their equals as far as it concerns Government... In OTL the prerequist to become Emperor was to be Roman (at least in patrilineal descent)... Barbarians were excluded... They could be the power behind the throne (and that happened only after the Empire was severely weakened) but not Emperors...
However changing the Mos Maiorum was difficult... Only Diocletian changed by transforming the Principate into Dominate in order to save the crumbling Empire... But the changes were enacted earlier as the Empire entered in 3rd's century Crisis... The only thing Diocletian did was to finish off the (already dead) Republic...

 

[chornedsnorkack]

I cant find any point in Roman history that can divert the TL into a Republic... who could have done it? Claudius? He was under duress from Praetorians... Vespasian? He was interested in establishing his own dynasty... Trajan? He wanted to be Imperator and expand the Empire... Marcus Aurelius? He had a chance to do it and he blew it when he favoured Commodus... After Commodus we enter the crisis of the 3rd century with Republic de facto dead...
Plus Romans didnt had a written constitution...

They had ten tablets. No one knows what was there, although most of what they quote is private law.

They had what they called the "Mos Maiorum" aka the "custom of ancestors" which was the main guidelines which ruled the Government... The problem with mos maiorum was that it could be interpeted in many ways favouring both Republic and Principate... It depends from what side you re looking it... So Augustus cant rewrite the constitution it would be a sacrilege to violate mos maiorum... He could be interprete it differently though as he did in OTL... And if u just think as 1st century Roman i am 1000% sure that u will think the exact same thing as Augustus...

Rome had a large bunch of constitutional reforms.

The reforms of Servius Tullius.

Founding of Republic.

First Secession and founding of tribunes of people.

The Decemviri, and writing the ten tablets.

Opening consulate to plebians in 367 BC.

Banning iteration in 342 BC.

Sundry reforms Appius Claudius Caecus did in his censorship.

The admission of Italians in Social War, and the reforms of Sulla.

Would it be conceivable for a Roman ruler in late 1st century BC to try and sum up his reforms in writing? I think - why not?

Among the associates of Octavian, Maecenas was perceived as a monarchist, and Agrippa as a republican. And Agrippa was Octavian´s heir. how precisely would Agrippa have ruled?

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Again the Romans didnt had a written constitution... They had the "mos maiorum"... something like todays UK...
Mos maiorum was the basic guidelines for the state and they could be interprete it in many ways... and they were mostly interpeted in a way that fitted someone... Augustus wouldnt had to rewrite it (rewrite what? some oral guidelines and customs?) in order to fit him... He just interpeted it in his own way to serve his interests...
As for the Barbarians... Rome was sacked by Gauls in 380 BC and was sacked again in 410 AD by Goths... After the Gauls left Romans made it clear that NONE would ever do that again... Plus Roman populace would have never accepted barbarians as their equals as far as it concerns Government... In OTL the prerequist to become Emperor was to be Roman (at least in patrilineal descent)... Barbarians were excluded... They could be the power behind the throne (and that happened only after the Empire was severely weakened) but not Emperors...
However changing the Mos Maiorum was difficult... Only Diocletian changed by transforming the Principate into Dominate in order to save the crumbling Empire... But the changes were enacted earlier as the Empire entered in 3rd's century Crisis... The only thing Diocletian did was to finish off the (already dead) Republic...

The Holy Roman Emperors Otto I, II, and III would perhaps fit the Roman definition of "Barbarians", in the 10th through 12th centuries they tried time and again to reestablish the "Roman Empire" by adding all of Italy to the German holdings, Otto I conquered Rome and appointed a German Pope at one point. Now what if these Holy Roman Emperors were more successful and they conquered all of Italy with their German armies, sat themselves on the throne and declared himself the Emperor whether the Italians like it or not. The Romans would have to accept Germans as equals then wouldn't they?

The thing about the Holy Roman Empire was that it was very Feudal, and very decentralized. Otto I could take the lead from William the Conquerer, and summon up all the lesser nobles into a body, that he could call "the Senate", he could establish them right in the original Roman Forum, after perhaps repairing it somewhat, he could insist that all the Dukes, Counts, and Barons of his Empire put on togas, and then he would ask permission from each of them to raise taxes on each of their territories, with a majority vote signifying approval of the body as a whole. One path to democracy is the path Great Britian took starting from a feudal kingdom. The Holy Roman Empire was one such Feudal Kingdom, the various nobles might be convinced that for the sake of the Holy Roman Empire, it might be a good idea for them to have a more centralized government with the power to protect them should an invading Army come along, and in exchange for their giving up their soveriegn rights in their own petty baronies, counties, and dutchies, they get special privaledges such as membership in the Imperial Senate, voting rights in that Senate and the right to approve all new expenditures, laws, and revenue raising mechanisms. The Senators receive a percentage of the taxes they receive from their territories while sending the rest to the Holy Roman Imperial government. Senators themselves would be tax exempt on their personal property. This body over time could evolve into a more democratic legislature much in the fashion of the British Parliment. The Emperor might himself establish a lower house called the Assembly with representatives taken from lesser non noble landowners and Imperial Knights. Over time the Assembly can split off a body called the Imperial Court, which decides on specific cases involving application of Imperial Law.

Now if we have a core Roman Empire in the 12 and 13th centuries consisting of Germany, Italy, Eastern France, Bohemia, parts of Polish, and Czech lands. Such a massive state might decide on an alliance with England, and between the two of them break up France during the one hundred years war with Great Britian getting Normandy and Northern France while the Holy Roman Empire gets the rest. Relations between the Holy Roman Empire and Great Britian would probably go down hill from their as they would now share a border. A more centralized Holy Roman Empire would probably be more sucessful in conquereing the East, and then it would turn its attention to North Africa and Islam. The Original Empire claimed the Mediterreanan as a Roman Lake, the Holy Roman Emperor would probably hold similar ambitions, it will want to conquer the Islamic World and convert its inhabitants to its brand of Christianity, it would have a nice obediante Pope which would be subserviant to the Emperor. Hopefully the Senate and Assembly would stand up for its rights and insist that the Emperor come to it for all legislation and funding. I think the New Roman Empire would be concerned with consolidating its holdings in Europe while Great Britian and Spain would concentrate on settling the New World and dividing it up between them. The Empire might establish a few colonies in Canada and the Carribean, assuming it can divert its attention from consolidating its holdings in Europe.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

I was referring to the original Roman Empire not the Holy Roman Empire...

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I was referring to the original Roman Empire not the Holy Roman Empire...

What difference does it make? If the Holy Roman Empire conquers Italy, it becomes the same thing, it was the goal of the Holy Roman Emperors to recreate the Roman Empire, that was why they named their country the Holy Roman Empire. The general rule I apply is that a country conquers something, it either lets go of it or it eventually becomes that which it conquers. A Holy Roman Empire which conquered Italy would become part Italian, the very name of the Empire would not allow them to treat Italians as second class citizens, they'd be forced to give Italians equal status with the Germans because of the name with which the German nation chose to call itself. Now since it was called the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor was then obligated to make Rome his capital since the conquest of Rome is the entire justification for the Empire's existance. Once Italy and Rome are securely within the Empire's grasp, then they'd turn their attention outward to conquer other parts of the former Roman Empire, Italy and Germany definitely make up the core, they would probably concentrate on taking other Mediterranean states so they can encircle that sea as the Roman Empire once did.

Anyway, if the Romans wanted to stay Roman, they shouldn't have conquered their Empire - that is the lesson of the Roman Empire.