WI: Two governors for each Roman province

Here what the notitia says:

- the guard of the emperor (the scolae) is under the command of the magister officiorum
- the central field army (exercitus praesentalis - 2 in the east, one in the west) is composed of palatini, comitatenses and pseudocomitatenses and under the command of the magistri militum et equitum

Sorry, my fault beeing imprecise. I should have distinguished between scholae palatinae and vexillationes palatinae. The latter are the cavalry of the central field army. When I wrote "Palatini" above, I meant the scholae palatinae, who are not reporting to the magister militum.

On a campaign, they of course marched all together as also already mentioned above. For example Valens' exercitus at Adrianople contained the scholae palatinae, at least 1 central field army, the poor rest of the thracian army and some vanguard of Gratians army.

But it does not matter. The important point for our discussion is, that in the west you have just one central field army near Ravenna. In the east you got 2 near Constantinople. You also brought up an important point. The magistri militum did not just command their central field army near Constantinople or Ravenna, some regional Comes also reported to them. In the West theoretically every commander reported to the one and only magister. Theoretically, of course. I doubt Bonifazius would agree, that he ever had reported to Stilicho.

So for a more stable roman empire (principate), I would see strong provincial armies, perhaps combined to even stronger regional field armies. In order to enable these commanders to defend their border effectively.

To avoid, that these guys are usurping, you got 2 central field armies. But the commanders of the regional armies would not reporting to the central magistri. The central magistri are just additional armies to defend Italy or to reenforce regional armies, if needed.

Regarding the differences between the 2 senates I already mentioned a book above.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the differences between the 2 senates I already mentioned a book above.

So I read a bit about the complex (though, not the book you recommended but a synopsis of the Byzantine empire) and it seems that the Senate of Byzantium was much more professionalized than the western one.

The fundamental difference was that the eastern senate was newly formed out of nothing and thus, in the first centuries of its creation, open to skilled men of the lower orders (decurions for example). This means that there were not that many great families of politicians, effectively inheriting their seats; that lower but capable officials had the chance to rise by being appointed prefect (or somewhat else by the emperor), whereas the west didn't know such advancements. However, I doubt that this situation lasted very long, since the eastern elite quickly closed itself to homines novi, and after some centuries became as aristocratic as and as wealthy as the western elite.

However, a difference not related to the date of the creation of the Eastern Senate, but to the Senate itself was its location. The Senate of Constantinople never stopped to influence imperial politics and to play a role in imperial administration because it was close to the emperor; the eastern senators had a place in the republic and maybe never gave up their political vocation, while the western senators, aware of their political insignificance, retired on their latifundia and became selfish landowners.

To avoid, that these guys are usurping, you got 2 central field armies. But the commanders of the regional armies would not reporting to the central magistri. The central magistri are just additional armies to defend Italy or to reenforce regional armies, if needed.

And who should be magister militum during the Principate? The "regional armies" of the principate, like the EX.GER.INF., were commanded by a LEG.AUG.PRO.PRAE. Who should command the central army? Surely a senator, most propably a former consul. What title has he? Praefectus exercitus italicae?

So for a more stable roman empire (principate), I would see strong provincial armies, perhaps combined to even stronger regional field armies. In order to enable these commanders to defend their border effectively.

Central armies and provincial armies... But do we need the limitanei? The Principate was able to defend the borders without an extra border army, but the Principate went down partially because the border defence had ceased to work.
 
The Principate was able to defend the borders without an extra border army, but the Principate went down partially because the border defence had ceased to work.

And the border defence ceased to work, because their was none. It was used elsewhere during civil wars. Military organisation and strategy was not the problem. It might help a bit, but thats it. Civil wars were the problem. During the principate as well as during the late empire.
 
Last edited:
The central field army will hopefully be strong enough to deter the regional generals from starting a civil war.

BTW what do you think of my other questions?

And who deters, that the commander(s) of the central field army start a civil war? I already raised this question above:
But how to avoid, that the commander of this central field army becomes the usurper himself? Or what happens, if this central field army is on a campaign out of Italy? Who defends now Italy? Or even worse: this central field army unites with a regional army, e.g. the Rhine army and succesfully campaigns against the germans. Who should stop this united army and this single succesful commander afterwards?

Btw, what other questions?
 
Last edited:
Meaning the examinations are pretty useless.

Better than no examinations at all.

And who deters, that the commander(s) of the central field army start a civil war? I already raised this question above:

I'm still a supporter of a collective leadership of legions and superior armies, just like the Republican legions were commanded by the six military tribunes serving in every legions. One ambitious general revolting is still possible, but he needs the consent of his colleage. And two dictators are one dictator too much...

Everybody, you included, seems to ignore my idea of a collegial command. Sure, two or more commanders can still start a civil war, but they have to arrive on an arrangement, especially on the way to fight against loyalist troops and on the distribution of power after the civil war. The loyalist troops commanded by the emperor have the advantage of unity and can beat a disunited and poorly commanded insurgent army even if they outnumbered.

Btw, what other questions?

These ones:

And who should be magister militum during the Principate? The "regional armies" of the principate, like the EX.GER.INF., were commanded by a LEG.AUG.PRO.PRAE. Who should command the central army? Surely a senator, most propably a former consul. What title has he? Praefectus exercitus italicae?
 
Better than no examinations at all.





Everybody, you included, seems to ignore my idea of a collegial command. Sure, two or more commanders can still start a civil war, but they have to arrive on an arrangement, especially on the way to fight against loyalist troops and on the distribution of power after the civil war. The loyalist troops commanded by the emperor have the advantage of unity and can beat a disunited and poorly commanded insurgent army even if they outnumbered.



These ones:
If all your examination does is to find people who can memorize a few texts and write some pretty essay,then no examination's probably better,because it wouldn't restrict intelligent but otherwise people who couldn't study these texts from getting government posts.It's no mistake that rebel leaders and foreigners often had brilliant advisors who were those that failed such exams.
 
G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:
Who should command the central army? Surely a senator, most propably a former consul. What title has he? Praefectus exercitus italicae?

This depends on the cursus honorum and the structure of the high government. Best case the commander is someone, who is not willing to become an usurpator. ;)

The title you proposed sounds feasible. But again it depends.
 
Best case the commander is someone, who is not willing to become an usurpator. ;)

There is one problem: who is not willing to become an usurpator? Imagine you are a legatus/praefectus, and you serve an emperor who is an idiot. Even if the emperor isn't an idiot, you are thinking so. Because you could do the job better. So why not marching on Rome with your army?
 
Top