WI: Two governors for each Roman province

[Alcsentre Calanice]

The government of the Roman republic relied on collegiality; there were, apart from the dictator and religious offices, no single decision makers. Each magistrate had to have the consent and of his colleagues and of the senate before making a decision of any kind. Thus, the senatorial class could always control ambitious politicians and prevent a concentration of power in the hands of a single person.

However, this system wasn't applied after the first conquests outside of Italy. Initially, the provinces were administrated by praetors; then by proconsuls; then by legati augusti, prefects, procurators and proconsuls; finally by praetorian prefects, vicarii, proconsuls, consulares, correctores and praesides (civil administration), magistri militiae, comites and duces (military command).

Each of these officials administered his office with the help of a staff (sometimes bigger, sometimes smaller), but was never controlled by a colleague like magistrates in the city of Rome were. Magistrates governing in Rome proper were watched over by his colleagues, by the people's tribunes and by the senate. The provincial governors however had nearly absolute power in their administrative circumscription and could plan and do anything, ranging from an illegal war over extertion to usurpation and civil war.

It's true that they could be charged after the end of their term of office, but often such accusations lead to nowhere since the witnesses were dead and the judges bribed by the defendant. But if the office of provincial governors had been collegial, it would have been much harder for a proconsul to do any major damage.

So what if the Romans applied their principle of collegiality also to the provincial governors?

 

[Tonifranz]

At first, the governors were not really administrators. They were simply the commanders of the army stationed at the spot. As commander of the army, his "province" was to simply keep the peace on a specific geographic area, to prevent revolts, and to collect the tribute. All other functions were simply later tacked on.

Indeed, the word "province" initially did not mean a geographical area, but rather, jurisdiction or expertise. Like, for example, the province of a Qaestor in Rome is financial, while praetor is judicial, and consul executive power in Rome. The province of the Senate is advisory, and that of assemblies legislation and election.

Proconsuls and propraetors "province" is to simply command an army that is posted on a province.

And since Roman armies, unless there are two consuls, only had, rightly, only one commander, and such commander had absolute power over the conduct of armies, quite naturally, he would also have absolute power over his "province", the army posted in the province.

Thus, it would be very difficult for the Roman mindset to have two governors early on, since that would be equivalent to giving command of one armies to two generals of equal authority.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

And since Roman armies, unless there are two consuls, only had, rightly, only one commander, and such commander had absolute power over the conduct of armies, quite naturally, he would also have absolute power over his "province", the army posted in the province.

Thus, it would be very difficult for the Roman mindset to have two governors early on, since that would be equivalent to giving command of one armies to two generals of equal authority.

IIRC, two general for one army isn't that un-Roman. In Cannae they had two generals.

 

[Raunchel]

IIRC, two general for one army isn't that un-Roman. In Cannae they had two generals.

Wasn't it something like when they had two generals, they would alternate command by the day? At least, that's what they did when both consuls were present. That was a bit of a special case, not something that could be easily replicated, unless a province would get two proconsuls for instance. And it would quickly become difficult to find enough of those willing to take up the task. The same goes with the propraetors.

 

[RiseofBubblez]

IIRC, two general for one army isn't that un-Roman. In Cannae they had two generals.

Not un-Roman as such but rare. It only happened in regards to armies in situations where two consular armies had to march together when the situation was dire enough to require both consular armies. Very rare but it happened occasionally and only with consuls. Bear in mind at Cannae both the generals were consuls.

 

[Tonifranz]

IIRC, two general for one army isn't that un-Roman. In Cannae they had two generals.

Yeah, but you know what happened in Cannae...

What usually happened that either one consul is in Rome and the other would command the armies, or both commanded separate armies. For provinces, the commanders are either proconsuls, or propraetors, and the senate would prorogue a praetor or consul so they would command armies stationed in the provinces after their term of office is over.

You would have to convince them to double the number of consuls and praetors elected each year just to have two governors in each province, when the whole point in using promagistrates as governors is because they don't like to create new magistrates in Rome just for the provinces, and they solved that problem by using ex magistrates.

 

[Behemoth]

IIRC, two general for one army isn't that un-Roman. In Cannae they had two generals.

According to Roman law, there would be alternating days for the consuls to have command.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Yeah, but you know what happened in Cannae...

What usually happened that either one consul is in Rome and the other would command the armies, or both commanded separate armies. For provinces, the commanders are either proconsuls, or propraetors, and the senate would prorogue a praetor or consul so they would command armies stationed in the provinces after their term of office is over.

I'm informed about both the results of Cannae and about the development of Roman provincial government

You would have to convince them to double the number of consuls and praetors elected each year just to have two governors in each province, when the whole point in using promagistrates as governors is because they don't like to create new magistrates in Rome just for the provinces, and they solved that problem by using ex magistrates.

Sulla used the praetors for his perpetual courts in Rome, but he could instead have doubled them and send two in each province. This would have do some good to his republic, since I don't see how generals like Caesar could start in civil war if they are tightly controlled by another governor (however, Caesar wasn't controlled by Bibulus either, but Bibulus was an idiot ... imagine Caesar and Cato as governors of southern Gaul. They would have constantly argued and Caesar wouldn't have had the possibility to plot against the republic).

 

[Ivir Baggins]

Sulla used the praetors for his perpetual courts in Rome, but he could instead have doubled them and send two in each province. This would have do some good to his republic, since I don't see how generals like Caesar could start in civil war if they are tightly controlled by another governor (however, Caesar wasn't controlled by Bibulus either, but Bibulus was an idiot ... imagine Caesar and Cato as governors of southern Gaul. They would have constantly argued and Caesar wouldn't have had the possibility to plot against the republic).

If we're going to do counterfactuals as to who Caesar's co-general would be I suggest Domitius Ahenobarbus, on account of him making a play for it OTL in the mid 50s.

 

[Tonifranz]

I'm informed about both the results of Cannae and about the development of Roman provincial government



Sulla used the praetors for his perpetual courts in Rome, but he could instead have doubled them and send two in each province. This would have do some good to his republic, since I don't see how generals like Caesar could start in civil war if they are tightly controlled by another governor (however, Caesar wasn't controlled by Bibulus either, but Bibulus was an idiot ... imagine Caesar and Cato as governors of southern Gaul. They would have constantly argued and Caesar wouldn't have had the possibility to plot against the republic).

I still think using two governors is a bad idea, since it would actually mean two commanders of the armies stationed in the province at the same time. And aside from preventing mischief, it could prevent anything positive being done if the governors are at loggerheads.

The better idea would be to sent a former quaestor as an independent proquaestor to control everything financial in the province. The Proquaestor would have to approve every expenditure of public money of the propraetor or proconsul, and he could have authority to prosecute the governor once the term of office is up.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

After seeing this, I thought it was a different divergence than from what the OP meant.

Among other things, Diocletian separated out the military command from the civil command in the provinces. Before his reforms, governorship of a province meant control of any legions stationed there. This was an evolution of the province = military command origins some posters have mentioned. But the later Roman Empire had a civil bureaucracy that was separate from the military command structure, like modern nations. This was done to address the problem of provincial governors revolting.

So what it Octavian had tried this, three centuries earlier (the Romans were conservative) from when it was finally implemented? And it could be done in a way where each province had a military pro-consul, if it had a legion or more, as well as a pro-praetor for the civil administration, answering not to the pro-consul but to the central administrator in Rome.

Historically, there were two big changes to how the empire was run that stuck, so those are the best places for PODs on changing the empire's structure.

 

[darthfanta]

After seeing this, I thought it was a different divergence than from what the OP meant.

Among other things, Diocletian separated out the military command from the civil command in the provinces. Before his reforms, governorship of a province meant control of any legions stationed there. This was an evolution of the province = military command origins some posters have mentioned. But the later Roman Empire had a civil bureaucracy that was separate from the military command structure, like modern nations. This was done to address the problem of provincial governors revolting.

So what it Octavian had tried this, three centuries earlier (the Romans were conservative) from when it was finally implemented? And it could be done in a way where each province had a military pro-consul, if it had a legion or more, as well as a pro-praetor for the civil administration, answering not to the pro-consul but to the central administrator in Rome.

Historically, there were two big changes to how the empire was run that stuck, so those are the best places for PODs on changing the empire's structure.

IIRC,the Pro-Consuls were governing provinces that had little or no legions during the empire.The legates were the ones who were governing provinces with armies in it.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

IIRC,the Pro-Consuls were governing provinces that had little or no legions during the empire.The legates were the ones who were governing provinces with armies in it.

Right, the only proconsul with legions (and here again only one) was the governor of Africa. That each imperial province should have two legati (as each senatorial province should have two proconsuls) is self-evident.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Another example of the perils of divided command would be the Battle of Arausio during the Cimbric War, when one of the Roman commanders refused to come to the aid of the other one, and the Romans were defeated in detail and suffered their worst defeat since Cannae.

That said, it might be plausible for Augustus or one of his successors to split the military and civil functions of the governors (or legates, since technically the Emperor was governor of most of the provinces). Emperors were, after all, generally quite jumpy about the prospect of provincial governors growing strong enough to challenge them, and weakening them in this way might seem like a good way of preventing such a thing from happening.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Right, the only proconsul with legions (and here again only one) was the governor of Africa. That each imperial province should have two legati (as each senatorial province should have two proconsuls) is self-evident.

Putting on my pedant's hat for a moment, the Legati Augusti were often of proconsular or propraetorian rank; although unlike in the Republic, they got their imperium because it was delegated to them by the Emperor, rather than due to their rank as pro Consule or pro Praetore.

 

[Agricola]

The better idea would be to sent a former quaestor as an independent proquaestor to control everything financial in the province. The Proquaestor would have to approve every expenditure of public money of the propraetor or proconsul, and he could have authority to prosecute the governor once the term of office is up.

Actually, the republican quaestors had an independent mandate by the senate. They were not reporting to the proconsul. Theoretically. But it did work seldomly this way, because the quaestor had a much lower social/political rank.

Augustus introduced independent financial procuratores for his provinces. Legates and procurators denunciated each other frequently. The situation in the provinces became better, but not substantially. Therefor I don't believe, that 2 proconsuls could be better than legate/procurator during the principate. Augustus system is at aleast a divison of power, 2 proconsuls are just collegiality. Worst case just 1 guy more to bribe.

Division of power in the provinces (army, iurisdiction, finance) is a step into the right direction. But just one of many measures needed.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Putting on my pedant's hat for a moment, the Legati Augusti were often of proconsular or propraetorian rank; although unlike in the Republic, they got their imperium because it was delegated to them by the Emperor, rather than due to their rank as pro Consule or pro Praetore.

I never heard of a LEG.AVG.PRO.COS. Even if the emperor appointed former consuls legati augusti, he avoided the title pro consule.

Actually, the republican quaestors had an independent mandate by the senate. They were not reporting to the proconsul. Theoretically. But it did work seldomly this way, because the quaestor had a much lower social/political rank.

So instead of a quaestor appoint a consul for the financial stuff ...

Augustus system is at aleast a divison of power, 2 proconsuls are just collegiality. Worst case just 1 guy more to bribe.

Hm, I don't understand why you think that this can't work. During the republic, the power of the consuls was limited by their short term, by their collegiality, by the senate and by the tribunes. Most of the time, this worked perfectly. Why not apply this effective system in the provinces too?

Division of power in the provinces (army, iurisdiction, finance) is a step into the right direction. But just one of many measures needed.

Rome's myterious conterpart (well, in the counterpart's eyes, Rome was equally mysterious), China, has developped a complex system to control its bureaucracy. Already during the Han dynasty, there was an empire-wide official (Imperial Counselor), comparable to a censor, who oversaw the administration with the help of Curcuit inspectors. Not a perfect arrangement, but a starting point for deeper reforms of the Empire.

Also during the Han dynasty, imperial examinations were set up to choose persons apt for administrative positions. This could be another step in the right direction for the Roman Empire.

 

[Agricola]

I never heard of a LEG.AVG.PRO.COS. Even if the emperor appointed former consuls legati augusti, he avoided the title pro consule.

Correct! Every governor of a imperial province was called Legatus Augusti pro praetore, even if some of them (e.g. Syria) was of consular rank. Also every governor of a senatorial province was called proconsul, even if just the governor of Asia and Africa was of consular rank, all others of praetorian rank.

 

[Agricola]

So instead of a quaestor appoint a consul for the financial stuff ...

Well, that would perhaps be too much. How should you get that many consuls without devaluing this office?

But it might work with praetors e.g. 3 of them for army, iurisdiction and finance. But now you need 3 times the praetors the cursus honorum produces. So you need a reform of the entire cursus honorum. And this has a huge impact on the senate, its size and / or the requirements for adlectio and the prestige of several senatorial groups. So you need a lot more than just adding a praetor per province. And such a huge reform is close to ASB in the roman world, if you are not designing it very carefully and step by step supported by multiple events triggering the process plausibly.

I agree, that more control would help the provinces. But for a working collegiality you always need 3 parties, not just 2 magistrates. You forgot this nearby 500 pound gorilla called roman senate, who steered the magistrates closely. Especially, when they were blocking each other. You do not have a senate in the province. Well, I could imagine to give the consilium provinciae more power. Especially in the very romanized provinces like the Baetica or Narbonensis it could work. Actually control worked this way, but not via the consilium. In the Narbonenesis lived a lot of very powerful roman families with best connections to the senate and the emperor. If these guys talked to the governor or blamed him in Rome, that had a strong meaning. Formalising this process via the consilium might help. But now we are going in the direction of federalism, which is even closer to ASB in the roman world. So you have been warned!

Beside magistrates controlling each other and the local elite controlling them, a third pillar would be inspectors from the central government. Usually the imperial secret service did that. Sometimes the emperor established a corrector for multiple provinces to do an review/audit or a reorganisation. Again a more formalized process and permanent organization might help.

Looking to education, you are right, that roman magistrates could have been prepared better, e.g. via a military academy, where they learn not just about military but also about the other big part of their career: governing provinces. But I was very frustrated, when I looked to the chinese model of educating clerks. These poor people had to memorize every book of Konfuzius and had to become perfect in writing it (calligraphy). They did not learn that much about how to govern a province, beside what they could read in Konfuzius books. The romans learned at least at the rhetor, how to run iurisdiction. Chinese and roman school system did not teach young magistrates the needed knowledge. Both just produced loyal people with the right mindset. That was way more important in ancient times than knowledge. From an ancient point of view, experience and knowledge comes with time and learning on the job.

So you have to change much more, than just adding a 2nd governor.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

So you need a reform of the entire cursus honorum.

Looking to education, you are right, that roman magistrates could have been prepared better, e.g. via a military academy, where they learn not just about military but also about the other big part of their career: governing provinces.

Why don't just get rid of the cursus (or maintain it for the senators, but strip the magistrates and promagistrates of their power) and appoint only equites governors as Diocletianus did? The equites are much more loyal than the senators, there are much less infected with snobbery, and are thus more open for innovations like an academy.

And this has a huge impact on the senate, its size and / or the requirements for adlectio and the prestige of several senatorial groups.

An old question of mine: how many senators left the senate every year (just considering natural deaths)? Because it's only possible to establish the right amount of magistrates entering the senate every year in you know how many leave it at the same time - unless you want the number of senators increase or decrease.

Both just produced loyal people with the right mindset.

And Confuciansm isn't a bad ideology/mindset for an hierarchical Empire: the need for a government to act virtuously and to have the support of its subjects; the duty of the subjects to serve and respect the ruler loyally.