WI Lex Titia didnot passed by the Senate in 43 AD?

In 27 November 43 BC the Senate passed Lex Titia... Lex Titia was a law legalizing the Second Triumvirate and granted them the right to rule for 5 years... (first Triumvirate was out law... kinda unofficial...)
This law marked the death of the Republic by removing authority from Popular Assemblies, the Senate and the Consuls giving them to "Triumviri"...
WI Senate tries to make a last stand and refused to pass the law?
Can the Senate go further and declare the Triumviri traitors and usurpers of Popular power? Any thoughts?
 
The Senate could refuse to pass the law and we might get an earlier proscription. Octavian at least was a homicidal nasty SOB, at least as a young man.

On the other hand, if the Triumvirs were in a weak position prior to the passage of the law, they might not be in a position to attack the Senate.

(my knowledge of the immediate aftermath of Caesar's assassination is limited to HBO's "Rome" and I know that has some major accuracy problems)

Were Caesar's assassins in charge in Rome prior to Antony stirring the public to anger with "friends, Romans, countrymen"?
 
Actually Antony held some influence over Rome when Caesar died... Octavian was in Apollonia (as a trainee for the army...) I dont know about Lepidus though... He was elected Pontifex Maximus (a position of high authority in Rome as he could appoint extraordinaire Dictators in case of an incapacitated Senate...) but he was elected some time after Caesar's assassination... So only Marc Antony could resist the Senate in Rome... But as it concerns Lex Titia in late 43 Lepidus was already Pontifex Maximus and Antony and Octavian were chasing Caesar's assassins all over Greece... Senate would challenge the Triumvirate only if Senators were too sure that they would beat all 3 of them...
 
Last edited:
The Senate didn't have enough support in the Legions to impose an out-lawing of the 2nd Triumvirate. That's why Cicero worked so hard to keep Octavian and Antony apart - enemies divided sort of thing - following Caesar's death. Unfortunately that didn't work in the long run, the two saw that there was more to gain by working together than against each other (for a time). Lepidus was included to provide more political support, but it was O & A that had the legion support.

Brutus and (I forget his name) did have some legion support in Macedonia, but it wasn't sufficient to restart the Civil War in the name of the Republic.

If the Senate out-lawed the 2nd Triumvirate, they would know they were signing the death warrant for the republic and themselves. As it was, they feared being proscribed (being declared legally 'killable' and their property confiscated by the state/triumvirate) to put up much fuss. Might made right at this time.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, just after the death of Caesar, Antony manages to intimidate the tyrancides and get them to flee Rome. The second triumvirate then forms to punish the fled assassins.

The easiest change I can imagine is that Cicero grows a backbone. He is neither a Caesarian Populares nor an ally of the tyrancides. Let's say he decides to join Brutus and Marc Antony in giving a eulogy of Caesar, and he does a very good job of it. He now has a genuine following separate from either faction.

The most immediate issue is to decide the character of the murder. Brutus and his allies have not yet been declared tyranicides because of all the complications decarling Caesar a tyrant would have implied. Antony still wants to kill the murders and Octavian still wants to safe-guard his inheritance. So things go pretty much as OTL until the Lex Titia is proposed. Cicero intervenes before it can be brought to a full vote. He begins neogtiations to uncouple the alliance of Antony and Octavian: Lepidus will be elected Consul for the coming year, with Cicero as his colleague. Caesar's will will be ratified by the Senate and Antony will be given full command of legions to apprehend the fled Senators who have begun to raise an illegal army of their own. As the war continues, though Antony still hates Cicero and vice-versa, Octavian counter both and TTL's informal second triumvirate become Cicero-Octavian-Antony. I believe that this is in line with Cicero's efforts to play Antony and Octavian off one another, but here he is more successful.

If you're in the mood to really save the Republic, then at some point Octavian, still the junior partner, propose to Cicero that to preserve the Republic changes must be made to ensure that a situation like that of Caesar's rise (to Cicero) and his death (to Octavian and Antony) doesn't again threaten the power of SPQR. They will need to fix two problems, IMHO: the personal loyalty of troops to their commanders, rather than to SPQR, and the need for a permanent executive authority to perserve order at home and abroad.

I'm not sure how they would solve the problem, but I'd feel confident that they work something out. The solution I've been mulling over is the creation of an additional office of Consul (now there will be three) and that each consul will serve a term of six years, with one being elected every two years. The three Consuls constitute a "Consulate" and certain decisions require the consent of 2/3 others 3/3. As to the army, I think the issue there is a more general reform of the popular assemblies to at least legalize the role of the army: perhaps a "Comita Militum"? My thought is that it's fairly impossible to curb the loyalty of troops to a commander, but if you enfranchise and empower all of the troops at once, then perhaps you re-create plebian-patrician politics in the army and thus stimy the effect. The position of Dictator is abolished in law. In an emergency (which must be recongized by a vote of the Senate and a unanimous ruling of the Consulate), the most recently elected Consul will assume temporary veto other the dissent of his colleagues.

Alternatively, the three-Consul situation could be the comprimise that emerges from negotiations over the Lex Titia rather than a later development. I have no idea how plausible this nor would I consider myself as knowledgeable on the period as others seem to be. I bow to their wisdom on the topic.
 
Last edited:
Lex Titia reinstated dictatorship (de facto) in the triumvirate... This Law however had a time limit which was ignored in time... Especially under Octavian who used Lex Titia to consolidate his own power...
 
IIRC, just after the death of Caesar, Antony manages to intimidate the tyrancides and get them to flee Rome. The second triumvirate then forms to punish the fled assassins.
They didn't so much flee as departed for their appointed governorships - They had every expectation that the business of the Republic would fall back into place after their work, which is why they didn't make any real plans to capture and consolidate power. Cicero berated them about that extensively. It was Antony that fled in fear that he too would be assassinated - another thing Cicero berated the conspirators about.
The easiest change I can imagine is that Cicero grows a backbone.
He did have a backbone, he just knew that coming down strongly in favour of the restorers of the Republic would drive Ocatvian and Antony into common cause earleir than it eventually did. It was to neutralize Antony that he made accord with Octavian - probably assuming the youngster (Oct. was only 18) as being less politically a threat to the Republic.
He is neither a Caesarian Populares nor an ally of the tyrancides. Let's say he decides to join Brutus and Marc Antony in giving a eulogy of Caesar, and he does a very good job of it. He now has a genuine following separate from either faction.

The most immediate issue is to decide the character of the murder. Brutus and his allies have not yet been declared tyranicides because of all the complications decarling Caesar a tyrant would have implied. Antony still wants to kill the murders and Octavian still wants to safe-guard his inheritance.
It was more the other way around - Antony wanted to secure the wealth of the inheritance - which he didn't give up to Octavian but kept himself as 'state assets'. Octavian was the avenger, and was willing to wait a ling time to get it.

Part of the problem is that the two elected consuls died follwing the siege at Mutina that tried to unseat Antony from Italian Gaul. With the power-vacuum of no consuls, the 2nd Triumvirate siezed the opportunity and got together. If those two men hadn't died of their wounds (forget their names) then Octavian may have continued to play along with the Constitution and work to defeat Antony (whom he distrusted/hated) rather than look to become consul so young.
 
I stand very much corrected!
I liked your idea of a Tri-Consulate, I may steal that for future work... and we could probably get there from here, but without the Lex Titia the Senators are in trouble... [insert ominous music here - bwamp-bamp-baoommm]
 
I liked your idea of a Tri-Consulate, I may steal that for future work... and we could probably get there from here, but without the Lex Titia the Senators are in trouble... [insert ominous music here - bwamp-bamp-baoommm]

As long as you steal it in service of the Senate and People of (ATL) Rome, no problem! :D

I've been trying to figure out whether it would really be more stable, though. I don't know enough of the in's and out's of Roman political history to be sure.

I will say that writing a TL about the ancient world is certainly a challenge, as I'm discovering as I attempt to plan one about Athens in the Peloponnesian war.

As far as the Senators are concerned....let's just "Laissez les mal tetes roulez!"
 
As long as you steal it in service of the Senate and People of (ATL) Rome, no problem! :D

I've been trying to figure out whether it would really be more stable, though. I don't know enough of the in's and out's of Roman political history to be sure.

I will say that writing a TL about the ancient world is certainly a challenge, as I'm discovering as I attempt to plan one about Athens in the Peloponnesian war.

As far as the Senators are concerned....let's just "Laissez les mal tetes roulez!"

But of course - SPQR Eternalis!

It would probably be more stable, though I think six year terms would be a stretch. Probably 3 year terms, with the election of one Consul every year would work better. A lot of the leading men of the Republic had their eyes on a Consulship, so it would need to be passed around more frequently. And six years is a long time in anyone's life, especially when a life didn't last much past 50, and you weren't legally eligible until you were in your 40's.

This could naturally follow from a Triumvirate, where one member dies, and the remaining two invite a replacement (instead of duking it out like Caesar/Pompey or Octvian/Antony did). The next year one of the original ('X'ius) stands down due to frustrations with the working arrangements, and the Senate approves a popular election of a replacement Consul to maintain the balance of power. The following year 'X'ius is re-elected after the last original member is ousted from power by the Senate for corruption.... etc. etc.
 
Without Lex Titia Octavian doesnt have any legal backing to consolidate power in 30 BC... Maybe the Senate could force him to hand back his powers to the Legislature... He might have kept Egypt as part of an agreement with the Senate i guess...
 
But of course - SPQR Eternalis!

It would probably be more stable, though I think six year terms would be a stretch. Probably 3 year terms, with the election of one Consul every year would work better. A lot of the leading men of the Republic had their eyes on a Consulship, so it would need to be passed around more frequently. And six years is a long time in anyone's life, especially when a life didn't last much past 50, and you weren't legally eligible until you were in your 40's.

This could naturally follow from a Triumvirate, where one member dies, and the remaining two invite a replacement (instead of duking it out like Caesar/Pompey or Octvian/Antony did). The next year one of the original ('X'ius) stands down due to frustrations with the working arrangements, and the Senate approves a popular election of a replacement Consul to maintain the balance of power. The following year 'X'ius is re-elected after the last original member is ousted from power by the Senate for corruption.... etc. etc.

I had originally thought about 3 years with one annually elected, but discarded it for being too short to ensure the loyalty of the army. On the other hand, nothing prevents a Consul from being returned to power on the completion of his term. Overall, I think 3 years could work, given your comments above.

I'm also not sure how the tribune's and their veto would fit into this structure. Presumably they can be kept around and serve the same function in the Senate as before.

I think if you give Octavian the means to get into power soon and give him the legal power to acomplish reforms without undoing the Republic then presumably he would devotedly uphold this newly revigorated Roman Republic.
 
I had originally thought about 3 years with one annually elected, but discarded it for being too short to ensure the loyalty of the army. On the other hand, nothing prevents a Consul from being returned to power on the completion of his term. Overall, I think 3 years could work, given your comments above.

I'm also not sure how the tribune's and their veto would fit into this structure. Presumably they can be kept around and serve the same function in the Senate as before.

I think if you give Octavian the means to get into power soon and give him the legal power to acomplish reforms without undoing the Republic then presumably he would devotedly uphold this newly revigorated Roman Republic.

Doesnt this pattern complicates things up? By having 3 Consuls the only way to keep the ballance between them is to divide executive/legislative and judicial branches amongst them...
Lets say that First Consul takes the executive branch (acts like Prime Minister) Second Consul takes legislative functions (something similar to Speaker of the Parliament) and the Third Counsul absorbs Praetor Urbanus and Praetor Peregrinus judicial authorities (acts as President of Supreme Court...)
While all three of them act as Head of State... What do u think?
 
Top