I like this idea but I would prefer something that's similar to the English monarchy where power slowly descends to the lower classes, mostly because the French version of government means loads of internal problems and revolutions while the British model seems to run smoothly and I really want a powerful surviving Byzantium and that seems more likely with a constitutional monarchy where internal unrest is minimal.
An Age of Miracles: The Revival of Rhomanion
- Thread starter Basileus444
- Start date
- Status
I like this idea but I would prefer something that's similar to the English monarchy where power slowly descends to the lower classes, mostly because the French version of government means loads of internal problems and revolutions while the British model seems to run smoothly and I really want a powerful surviving Byzantium and that seems more likely with a constitutional monarchy where internal unrest is minimal.
The problem with a modern monarch with actual powers is that an educated populace won't accept a sub-par monarch as being legitimate. No matter its history, the moment the current monarch starts to produce less than adequate results there is going to be a movement to replace them with someone else, which in turn brings into question the very legitimacy of an Emperor's ascension. If the Emperor of Rome is going to maintain actual power into the modern era, there needs to be a method of succession which guarantees a competent monarch (at least to the degree that democratic or bureaucratic appointments manage) while retaining the legitimacy of the monarch's succession i.e. it's not just some person with no historical or political precedent. There'll probably also need to be some means of easily and legally replacing a poor Emperor without rendering him a figurehead (defeating the purpose of an Emperor with power) as another means of protecting the institution.
I personally would see the modern Emperor as being mostly concerned with foreign affairs and the most important functions of the state; the less pressing and more flexible affairs being left to the (elected?) Megas Domestikos and cabinet(?). A modern state cannot be run by one individual, but leaving the most "imperial" powers to the Emperor would probably be enough to keep him relevant.
I personally would see the modern Emperor as being mostly concerned with foreign affairs and the most important functions of the state; the less pressing and more flexible affairs being left to the (elected?) Megas Domestikos and cabinet(?). A modern state cannot be run by one individual, but leaving the most "imperial" powers to the Emperor would probably be enough to keep him relevant.
The thing is, Rhomania has a method of dealing with subpar emperors. It does replace them. And I'm not sure why an educated populace would have a bigger problem with subpar emperors than subpar presidents.
That's kinda what most Emperors did to a greater or lesser extent. Running the whole state single handedly is beyond the ego of even Justinian.
Sure, every state does have a "method" of replacing heads of state, the question is whether or not it is adequate. The current coups/assassinations/waiting for them to die doesn't strike me as acceptable to a modern, educated populace. Why modern and educated? Other than actually having a decent idea of what's going on, such a populace would also have a better idea of what is good for them, and will demand it. A stable government, with the ability to replace itself, is most certainly a good. The part about needing a more effective system for ensuring effective Emperors is that they serve for life, as opposed to less than a decade. More to lose, so to speak.
Certainly, I was thinking more than an entirely hands off attitude to domestic affairs, as opposed to say Andreas Niketas' very involved approach to the concerns of the population. Even a modern Andreas just wouldn't be able to deal with the enormous range of issues, there is just that much more work involved.
Speaking as someone who was politically aware in 2000-2008: Having "A decent idea what's going on", "a better idea what's good for them", and "will demand it" . . .
And Emperors serving for life is something that is . . . um . . taken literally.
Yeah. Although I think the amount Andreas was personally directly involved is overstated - reaching tens of thousands of people is still a fraction of Rhomania's current population.
Speaking as someone who was politically aware in 2000-2008: Having "A decent idea what's going on", "a better idea what's good for them", and "will demand it" . . .
And Emperors serving for life is something that is . . . um . . taken literally.
Yeah. Although I think the amount Andreas was personally directly involved is overstated - reaching tens of thousands of people is still a fraction of Rhomania's current population.
Haha fair enough, but just imagine Shrub being in power for decades! On the flip side, as someone who was politically aware in 2010, Gillard's "coup" did not sit well with me, and to this day is a principle factor in why I dislike her (still better than Abbott to be fair), and unless I'm mistaken this is an at least moderately common sentiment in Australia. An actual coup to dethrone an otherwise lifelong head of state would be that much worse. I honestly can't see the position of Emperor being immune to a legal process to remove a reigning Emperor if they prove inadequate. Such a process would and should be involved and difficult, perhaps an somewhat easier equivalent to referenda, but would be absolutely necessary to maintain the position.
I don't think it necessarily would be - especially if it's expected that unacceptable rulers will become ex-rulers.
Fair enough, but that is something that would need to evolve out of the current system. As is I doubt any Emperor would accept being told that they're no longer Emperor.
The Constantinoplean mob and Guard tagmata:
"That's very nice, _____. Do you want some cheese with that whine?"
(Now unless I've misunderstood your point as being in regards to a modern day removal of a poor Emperor whereas you actually meant it in regards to a 1528 Imperial replacing), it'd be an unusually unpopular Emperor to actually suffer what amounts to popular revolution. Like, much worse than Bush. Do you really see a Bush expy being overthrown by popular revolt? To take the US as an example, were the presidency to effectively be Emperor For Life, attempting to remove a "president" such as Bush via popular revolt would result in civil war. He'd needed to have been much worse than that to avert civil war.
That's why you rely on the fact that Rhomania's equivalent of the Secret Service is loyal to the office, not the individual.
And it's not a popular revolt, it's Constantinople specifically.
That's certainly a start, but as the average Constantinopolitan circa whenever their 2012 equivalent is, I'd be happier actually knowing why we've got a new Emperor. What I'd envisage as being an adequate system would be one conducted by the Imperial office, but which was done with the full knowledge and support of the people.
"We have a new emperor because the old one sucked."
The US and Australia don't have a history of their rulers being overthrown partially through their time in office, Rhomania does.
But who says the old one sucked? If that were enough then an Emperor could be deposed/imposed for purely political and unaccountable reasons. Rhomania also has a history of the Emperor being able to murder thousands of people because they have a political agenda he disagrees with, but that's not something a 2012 equivalent Rhomania should attempt to continue.
And that would be even more likely with a system dependent directly on the whims of the people.
My point on the history part is that "but in Australia or the United States it wouldn't fly"- well, the US and Australia don't have the history Rhomania does.
Rhomania having such a history might make it less shocking to the Romans, but no less damaging to the integrity of the state. I'm not arguing for an elected Emperor (though would that be such a bad thing?), but for an Imperial office which is accountable to the nation as a whole. Accountability is a strength of modern states, it reduces corruption and weeds out incompetence. For a head of state to be accountable he must be accountable to the state as a whole. To remove an ineffective Emperor whatever elements of the government which have that power must have a mandate each time they exercise it, or else they simply become the power behind the throne, and the Emperor may as well be the commonwealth head of state, with little active role in governing. The office has to be protected from both incompetence and irrelevancy in the scenario we're proposing, but I just can't see how this can be achieved without bringing popular support into the equation.
Tell me something. Rhomania had this system for - at least - a thousand years (as of the current year in timeline)
Has the office become irrelevant in any sense?
I don't think that's fair. The position of King of England/France/Spain/whatever did not lose any relevance in the 16th century, but today either is gone or at best fairly limited in an active sense. I don't see this as an issue for Rhomania for some centuries at least, but I am talking about it from when they reach a level of technological and social development which we today would recognise as being fairly close to home.
But why would - and I'm looking at in terms of working in this regard, not in regards to "people want more representation etc.", which is a different problem for the Emperors - the current system of replacing emperors work less well for the imperial office in the age of radio or TV (speclating on the internet this far off seems fruitless)?
I can think of several, though I'll admit that these probably won't develop in the same way they did IOTL.
1. People like stability. Musical Emperors isn't going to go down well with a politically aware populace, nor is it healthy for security. At the timelines present point this isn't issue, principally because poor Emperors (distinct from terrible ones) just aren't going to be removed, but also because there is a much larger gap between the average Roman and those with political power. Presumably this gap will be much smaller in "modern" times, allowing a large number of people to grow unrestful during times of unstable government. This in itself is not an office killer.
2. The current system gives unaccountable individuals an enormous amount of power. This is a problem distinct from issues of representation in that unaccountable "Emperor-makers" i.e. a powerful general/merchant/politician is to gain effective control over the most powerful office in the land to serve their own interests. While they may be benevolent, they may also institute an effective kleptocracy, allowing them and their supporters to run the country to their benefit. This is an issue extant in all systems of government which allow private individuals to accumulate excessive power. This is an issue which I would argue exists right now in the Empire, and always has. Ancient Rome was rife with Emperors put up by their legions, and while today's Rhomania has certainly evolved beyond this to a notable degree the laws of the land do not explicitly prevent this from occurring a la the separation of powers found in most modern countries today.
3. From a cultural perspective, I doubt the Roman intelligentsia would be satisfied with a system which allows for the strongest bully to seize power so long as they have some kind of claim. Today we would see it is profoundly immoral that the hairiest chested man could become Emperor just because he had the muscle, as opposed to having the requisite skills to govern the nation. Nikephoros gained power through assassination; would any head of state whom was even suspected of this today be acceptable? Such barbaric practices will surely be abandoned as Rhomania advances on cultural, philosophical and ethical lines.
4. Finally, the issue of representation cannot be ignored, I don't think. While Empires in general seem set to acquire a level of legitimacy they've long since lost in our world, I strongly doubt that the same ideas of representative government won't evolve in this world. They'll certainly be different, and expressed in unusual (by our standard) ways, but ultimately educated population want to feel the government is their government. An Emperor who comes into power through the shadowy machinations of the secret service will just not have the legitimacy of one who ascends through proving to the people that he/she is capable and concerned with the interests of those he governs. Combine the former with incompetence and perhaps some extenuating circumstances and I can see a serious threat to the Imperial office looming.
- Status