Why did Theodoros make two Emperors?

GdwnsnHo · Aug 3, 2015

Why did Theodosius make two Emperors?

Bit of a curious thought of mine

Why did Theodosius make both of his Sons Emperor? Why not simply have one as Emperor, and have two Great Generals - one for the East, and one for the West, with a fallback army under Imperial command? Is there another reason beyond military control that the Emperors were needed?

Essentially you'd have a position that has pretty much given free reign for command purposes, but all money comes via the Emperor (at least in writ), to ensure the loyalty of the Armies. Otherwise has near-Imperial authority for the Military. So the position of... Military Prime (or other actual latin rather than my poor pseudo-latin)? Given a lot of free reign, down to how to standardize the army in his region.

1) Western Armed Forces - Based near the Western Borders, centre of its own military complex, styled/trained as deemed appropriate by the Military Prime. Appointed by the Emperor.

2) Eastern Armed Forces - Same idea, but based in the East.

3) Imperial Forces - with recruits drawn from everywhere, but primarily Italia/Africa. This third Military Prime would be the Emperor traditionally, or a General of choice. Difficult position as the army would need to be able to react to the East and the West if needed, or be used for aggressive expeditions.

So I guess three questions

A) What advantage did Emperors give that Military Primes would not?

B) What would the best divisions of responsibility be for the Military Primes?

C) What would the armies of these Military Primes look like, considering their focus and responsibilities?

Alcsentre Calanice · Aug 3, 2015

One of the reasons may be that the late ROman emperors considered the Empire as they private property which they could bequeath and split between their sons.

Draeger · Aug 3, 2015

Probably to prevent his non-inheriting son from becoming a rebellious pretender.

GdwnsnHo · Aug 4, 2015

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:
One of the reasons may be that the late ROman emperors considered the Empire as they private property which they could bequeath and split between their sons.

Well, this would make sense.

Draeger said:
Probably to prevent his non-inheriting son from becoming a rebellious pretender.

Again, not a bad idea - but Emperors have done other things to prevent this problem (or could).

I think I may have misplaced the emphasis. Why was it two EMPERORS, rather than anything else? It can't have been solely to give half the Empire to each of his (apparently) useless sons? The man had just spend a lifetime taking the Empire for himself!

LSCatilina · Aug 4, 2015

Did you meant Theodosius?

GdwnsnHo · Aug 4, 2015

LSCatilina said:
Did you meant Theodosius?

God yes.

LSCatilina · Aug 4, 2015

Oh well, you can always change the title.

GdwnsnHo said:
Why not simply have one as Emperor

Mostly because the division of the empire was already a practical reality since Diocletian. In order to manage the growingly important military pressures, it was assumed (and proven largely adapted) that it worked on that matter, even if it provoked issues of its own (but co-imperium would have still happened de facto, except provoked by revolts and half-failed claims, as during the IIIrd century crisis).

The reign of Theodosius over the whole Romanity was actually really short : 4 months!
Having co-emperors was only about returning to a normal situation, after another usurpation on the Western part.

, and have two Great Generals - one for the East, and one for the West, with a fallback army under Imperial command?

Giving the really important identification of imperium, in the Late Empire, with military matters, it would have been the same. Except that you'd have generals revolting and claiming the imperium, making it all messier.

It was far more logical to prevent a likely break-away of a same administration (for everyone concerned, it was a co-imperium, not a division. It was not made to be definitive, it just happened so), and rather make it distinct from the start to fill own regional needs.

And giving the weight of dynastical legitimacy in Roman times (that you can find as well in the earlier times of the Empire, including Antonines), trying to keep the Empire unified in spite of having two distinct administrations, giving the co-imperium to two brothers (as Theodosius shared the imperium with Valentinian II, his half-brother), was right on the line of contemporary ideas.

Is there another reason beyond military control that the Emperors were needed?

A bit : the management of growingly different western and easter mediterranean basin, Constantinople as a clear political power base. But giving the huge military role and identity of the late Roman imperium, military reasons only are pretty much enough.

It also provided a legitimacy support against usurpers and military rebellions : for exemple, as Gratian prevented the situation going too badly in ERE by making his general, Theodosius, emperor in Constantinople.

What advantage did Emperors give that Military Primes would not?

Legitimacy. Any military ruler could rule the empire, but that could quickly devolve in a quick succession of generals without much support basis, as it happened in WRE after Valentian/Theodosian Dynasty fall.

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:
One of the reasons may be that the late ROman emperors considered the Empire as they private property which they could bequeath and split between their sons.

That's really a gratious supposition, would it be only because of the fiscus remained untouched, and not a private property.

Interestingly, this is the same pre-concieved rationalisation that's gaven for Merovingian or Visigothic co-kingship existence : and as well in these case, the maintance of the fiscus, or public land, disproves totally any explanation based on public institutions taken as private property.

GdwnsnHo · Aug 4, 2015

LSCatilina said:
Oh well, you can always change the title.

I assume that'll need an admin change? (Can't see the option)

LSCatilina said:
Mostly because the division of the empire was already a practical reality since Diocletian. In order to manage the growingly important military pressures, it was assumed (and proven largely adapted) that it worked on that matter, even if it provoked issues of its own (but co-imperium would have still happened de facto, except provoked by revolts and half-failed claims, as during the IIIrd century crisis).

The Diocletian Trope resurfaces! Again, probably the best place to reform the role of Emperor and Empire lies there.

What a shocker.

Reasons notwithstanding, could he (and how could he) have created such a system? (and what would the impact be, assuming he retained the title of Military Prime of the Imperial Forces)

LSCatilina said:
The reign of Theodosius over the whole Romanity was actually really short : 4 months!

Really? Man, I need to read up on these things more.

LSCatilina said:
Giving the really important identification of imperium, in the Late Empire, with military matters, it would have been the same. Except that you'd have generals revolting and claiming the imperium, making it all messier.

I suppose this repeats my question above, how could Diocletian break this identity?

LSCatilina said:
It was far more logical to prevent a likely break-away of a same administration (for everyone concerned, it was a co-imperium, not a division. It was not made to be definitive, it just happened so), and rather make it distinct from the start to fill own regional needs.

Break-way of a same administration?

What does that even mean?

LSCatilina said:
A bit : the management of growingly different western and easter mediterranean basin, Constantinople as a clear political power base. But giving the huge military role and identity of the late Roman imperium, military reasons only are pretty much enough.

It also provided a legitimacy support against usurpers and military rebellions : for exemple, as Gratian prevented the situation going too badly in ERE by making his general, Theodosius, emperor in Constantinople.

See, I always would have thought that a single Emperor would be better placed to consider the Empire as a whole, or at least consider the areas that are weaker, and develop those areas accordingly, much better than two Emperors where one would have to suffer the indignity of going cap-in-hand.

So if we can break the military association with the Emperorship, how else (besides pay, and oaths of loyalty) could the Emperor have loyalty of the troops? Cycling out the Generals on a biannual basis?

deathscompanion1 · Aug 4, 2015

I think in large part it was inevitable that Co-Emperors and later separate (but officially and often unofficially-gut feelingly/ideally/that weird Roman sense of self that shaped everything that is hard to get a grip on thousands of years later- United) Emperors for East and West became a thing because Rome had 2.5 major fronts requiring massive armies and active commanders to hold out for Imperial security and these fronts were weeks/months away from each other and normally had the resources for the man on the spot to take the Legions and march on Rome/Antioch as they pleased. The Imperium was just too large and military necessity made concentrated authority too impractical and too dangerous (why should an underling remain an underling if he has won all his battles whilst the idiot in Rome bribed fucking barbarians after they slaughtered his field army? Its time to save the Imperium with an Emperor favoured by the Gods and the Legions) whilst an amiable division served nicely to tie whoever had physical control of the other half of the Empire to his opposite number without giving him anything to gain by giving the Legions another reminder that they can support an Imperial claim at will.

LSCatilina · Aug 4, 2015

GdwnsnHo said:
I assume that'll need an admin change? (Can't see the option)

If you edit your first post, you have the possibility to re-write the title, I think.

I suppose this repeats my question above, how could Diocletian break this identity?

He couldn't. Emperors, since at least Antonines, knew a growingly important military role, and that only became more important with the outer pressures on Romania : there's a reason why Emperors were issued from military structures.

It's not some kind of feature that could be switched on or off. It was the cultural and institutional reality, that had to be dealt with, and for the sake of the political survival, had to be maintained.

Look at Honorius's reign, and how his absence of real military role provoked both rise of patrices (as Stilicho, or later Aspar in the ERE) and endless military revolts. Arcadius and late Valentinians/Theodosian rule mostly avoided that because they didn't have to deal with the same level of military needs.

Break-way of a same administration? What does that even mean?

For what mattered Romans, you had a sole administration. In case of a division due not to political decision but military revolt, this administration would have broken-up, instead of co-operating.

See, I always would have thought that a single Emperor would be better placed to consider the Empire as a whole

Giving how good it did during the IIIrd century crisis, Romans tought that it wasn't that relevant. Not that the Empire, even with two, or three, or four (as many emperors were considered so already during their predecessor's reign, as Theodosius' sons) emperors was condiered divided.
Again, you really have to wait the collapse of Valentinian dynasty in WRE for that EREmperors cease to be actively collaborating with their western counterparts, military or fiscally.

much better than two Emperors where one would have to suffer the indignity of going cap-in-hand.

Which indignity? I think you're pasting some outer conception there : again, and that's crystal clear on contemporary sources, the Empire wasn't divided, but was under a collegial direction, and note that collegiality was existing since centuries for what matter emperors, just look at Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Aurelius Verus. We're talking about an established institution there.

The main difference was that this collegiality happened to be territorial as well since Diocletian (de jure, as it was often the case de facto before).

An emperor could be considered indign, failing to fill his tasks and their either going trough an uneasy collaboration or being replaced by its counterpart. That the supposed indignity was true (as Magnentius) or alleged must be taken in account, as power struggles were obviously a thing; but the indignity wasn't about collegiality.

So if we can break the military association with the Emperorship

At best, you'd end an imperial power growingly more and more symbolic, with real power at the hand of court patrices or eunuchs, doing and undoing emperors at their benefit. It happened in both WRE and ERE, but both dynastic continuity and lack of really critical outer pressure made ERE less vulnerable.

And even there, you still had a military role of the emperors, real (Marjorian, Marcian) or even limited (Theodosius II). Breaking it totally would have meant revolt and replacement on very short term.

Cycling out the Generals on a biannual basis?

I'd rather see Generals cycling out emperors on a bisannual basis.

More seriously, it's not about something that was to be resolved with a law, a decree, or a switch on/off button on a Paradox game.
It was about something deeply ingrained in late Roman political conceptions.

No matter the amount of legal shenanigans and theories that could have been pulled off, it would have meat the harsh reality; just as if an emperor having legally forbidden gravity would have by attempting to fly from the roof of his palace.

(With a similar fate, interestingly, when it comes to blood stains)