What if the Romans had constitutionally enshrined the Triumvirate?

MAlexMatt

Banned
It seems to me that the only periods of near-stability in the late Republic were when there was some level of balance between the most powerful men in Rome. The system, in both cases, collapsed when one of the three either died or became politically impotent.

Well, what if some enterprising jurist or senator noticed this and went about trying to get things set up so that the whole thing became a regular part of the operation of the Republic? Adding a Consul or something.

Might this be a very late PoD that might actually see the Republic surviving?
 
It seems to me that the only periods of near-stability in the late Republic were when there was some level of balance between the most powerful men in Rome. The system, in both cases, collapsed when one of the three either died or became politically impotent.

Well, what if some enterprising jurist or senator noticed this and went about trying to get things set up so that the whole thing became a regular part of the operation of the Republic? Adding a Consul or something.

Might this be a very late PoD that might actually see the Republic surviving?

Probably not. It's more likely that differences between the three men would lead to greater segregation, and the Republic would break into three (or more) pieces. You might see more nations claiming "heir of Rome" than did OTL; plus Christianity wouldn't spread quite as wide.
 
It´s an interesting idea, but methinks the guy with most soldier behind him ends up as dictator anyway.

Still... interesting scenarios could arise.
 
It seems to me that the only periods of near-stability in the late Republic were when there was some level of balance between the most powerful men in Rome. The system, in both cases, collapsed when one of the three either died or became politically impotent.

Well, what if some enterprising jurist or senator noticed this and went about trying to get things set up so that the whole thing became a regular part of the operation of the Republic? Adding a Consul or something.

Might this be a very late PoD that might actually see the Republic surviving?

The problem is that the First Triumvirate was something of an accident. The only reason that it was set up is that Caesar was able to act as a bridge between Pompeius and Crassus, as the latter two hated each other. Once Crassus was dead and the marital link between Caesar and Pompeius was broken by the death of Julia, friction and envy destroyed the Triumvirate. The second Triumvirate wasn't really a triumvirate as Lepidus was a useless wuss.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The second Triumvirate wasn't really a triumvirate as Lepidus was a useless wuss.

Not as far as Antony was concerned. So long as Lepidus was part of the equation, Octavian would be outvoted in the Triumvirate and Antony would appear to have the upper hand. Not as big an advantage as it sounds (Octavian would do whatever he wanted anyway), but hardly useless.
 
what if at some point after the empir ewas formed, they went back to the triumvirate as a way to stablize the ever expanding empire, as more of a administrative system...the consuls would be more govenors more than anything, each given rule over certain segment of the empire, with equal soilders and such, and the senate (with a figurehead emperor) would control the empire as a whole...
like...they would determain what happens inside their territories borders concering local matters, but laws and such that effect the empire as a whole (taxes, religion, declarations of war, etc) remain in the hands of rome itself...think they could work¿?
 
what if at some point after the empir ewas formed, they went back to the triumvirate as a way to stablize the ever expanding empire, as more of a administrative system...the consuls would be more govenors more than anything, each given rule over certain segment of the empire, with equal soilders and such, and the senate (with a figurehead emperor) would control the empire as a whole...
like...they would determain what happens inside their territories borders concering local matters, but laws and such that effect the empire as a whole (taxes, religion, declarations of war, etc) remain in the hands of rome itself...think they could work¿?

The Emperor ruled through military force, not constitutionality. This was, however, only truly accepted by the Emperors around the time of Diocletian. I could see an Emperor ruling through a figurehead triumvirate, but if they want to legitimize, they probably would use the old "Supporter of the Senate" card that Augustus used.
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
what if at some point after the empir ewas formed, they went back to the triumvirate as a way to stablize the ever expanding empire, as more of a administrative system...the consuls would be more govenors more than anything, each given rule over certain segment of the empire, with equal soilders and such, and the senate (with a figurehead emperor) would control the empire as a whole...
like...they would determain what happens inside their territories borders concering local matters, but laws and such that effect the empire as a whole (taxes, religion, declarations of war, etc) remain in the hands of rome itself...think they could work¿?

Eventually, this sort of system was tried in OTL. It sounds somewhat like Diocletian's Tetrarchy.
 

OS fan

Banned
Such a system would break down once one of these three men isn't capable enough. One needs more people (for example, the Roman senate) to create stability. And one have to make sure that this group continually adds new capable members.
 

amphibulous

Banned
It seems to me that the only periods of near-stability in the late Republic were when there was some level of balance between the most powerful men in Rome. The system, in both cases, collapsed when one of the three either died or became politically impotent.

Well, what if some enterprising jurist or senator noticed this and went about trying to get things set up so that the whole thing became a regular part of the operation of the Republic? Adding a Consul or something.

Might this be a very late PoD that might actually see the Republic surviving?

No, because the Republic didn't collapse because of a shortage of consols. There were two definite problems that the political class as a whole couldn't deal with - probably because both were sources of profit for them.

1. The collapse of the small Roman farmer and hence the rise of Headcount professional armies loyal to the generals who would reward them

and

2. Exploitative and unsustainable tax farming in Rome's foreign possessions - made huge profits for the tax farmers, but at huger costs for Rome.

To solve either problem you had to take power from the Senate and the Knights - calling Rome simply a "republic" tends to cause people to imagine it was something like the US - well, back in the 50's - or Switzerland. But the voting system was heavily weighted in favour of the upper classes, and decisions in the Senate even more so - so more like the contemporary US really.
 
Top