An Age of Miracles: The Revival of Rhomanion

[Elfwine]

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.

But we're not talking about "musical emperors". The only times anything like that happened OTL were catastrophic civil war level situations.

The 13th century sees two coups (Alexius V, Michael VIII) - not counting the issue with the crusaders and Alexius IV/Isaac II.

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.

That's why it's called absolute monarchy and not representative democracy.

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.

It's not 'the strongest bully". If it was, Andronicus I would have ruled twenty years instead of two (assuming old age didn't claim him) and Andronicus II would have been dropped like a PM that lost a vote of no confidence.

Which actually might be an interesting check - if the Emperor fails a vote of "no confidence', he has to step down. That might be something that doesn't undermine the monarchical element (significantly) but gives some actual "say" in things.

And those without the requisite skills to govern rarely lasted.

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.

Speaking as an educated member of the public and a monarchist in our world, an Emperor who comes into power because he has the Guard tagmata at his side is just as legitimate as a president who comes into office promising hope and change.

I'm not - philosophically and morally - concerned with how someone takes power, I'm concerned with how they use it.

In this world, and especially in well-entrenched monarchist Rhomania, that's not going to be an uncommon attitude, IMO.

 

[Dominic]

But we're not talking about "musical emperors". The only times anything like that happened OTL were catastrophic civil war level situations.

But who's to say that won't happen again? We've got 500 years to look forward. It might or might not, depends entirely upon and author who's current arc is a civil war to determine the Emperorship

That's why it's called absolute monarchy and not representative democracy.

And that didn't help Louis XVI.

It's not 'the strongest bully". If it was, Andronicus I would have ruled twenty years instead of two (assuming old age didn't claim him) and Andronicus II would have been dropped like a PM that lost a vote of no confidence.

I'm not saying that the strongest bully could hold onto power for all that long, though that certainly could happen in a dystopic version of this world's future, but that it (the current system) gives such a bully a real opportunity to go for it, and cause lots of harm on the way. Failed coups are still nasty. Not to mention that the bully mightn't be the Emperor himself but someone who uses the system to control the office due to the law allowing it.

Which actually might be an interesting check - if the Emperor fails a vote of "no confidence', he has to step down. That might be something that doesn't undermine the monarchical element (significantly) but gives some actual "say" in things.

This certainly I can get behind, and is the sort of thing I believe will preserve the office.

Speaking as an educated member of the public and a monarchist in our world, an Emperor who comes into power because he has the Guard tagmata at his side is just as legitimate as a president who comes into office promising hope and change.

I'm not - philosophically and morally - concerned with how someone takes power, I'm concerned with how they use it.

In this world, and especially in well-entrenched monarchist Rhomania, that's not going to be an uncommon attitude, IMO.

Fair enough, I'll agree that it probably will be at least a more common attitude that in our world. However I seriously doubt that it will be the only attitude, the lure of representative government is very strong. I believe that such representation will be thought of as very different in this world than in ours, but I'd be very surprised for it not to be there in some form. A large part of having power is how you gain it, and while you mightn't be fussed by a armed coup of competent rulers, I, for instance, could never see them as being as legitimate in their use of power than someone who I had had a voice in choosing/supporting, and I think that attitude will be fairly common as well.

EDIT: Finally mastered the "wrap around text" function. Huzzah!

 

[Elfwine]

But who's to say that won't happen again? We've got 500 years to look forward. It might or might not, depends entirely upon and author who's current arc is a civil war to determine the Emperorship

The point is, that's a sign things have fallen apart to the point any system is going to be "God why have You forsaken us?"

And that didn't help Louis XVI.

Who was inept and governing a considerably less, in a word, efficient state.

I'm not saying that the strongest bully could hold onto power for all that long, though that certainly could happen in a dystopic version of this world's future, but that it (the current system) gives such a bully a real opportunity to go for it, and cause lots of harm on the way. Failed coups are still nasty. Not to mention that the bully mightn't be the Emperor himself but someone who uses the system to control the office due to the law allowing it.

The office is only controllable if you give someone the power to make and break emperors. Otherwise, wannabe emperormakers are going to find out that the Emperor holds more power than they do.

This certainly I can get behind, and is the sort of thing I believe will preserve the office.

It certainly gives a basis for allowing imput without that necessarily transferring authority. And speaking for myself, that's the thing - people are going to definitely want to be able to speak of what they feel about things, even if they accept the decisions being made by the autocrat. As Russia shows OTL, the other way will be hated over time.

And encourage speaking lies to power, which we don't want.

Fair enough, I'll agree that it probably will be at least a more common attitude that in our world. However I seriously doubt that it will be the only attitude, the lure of representative government is very strong. I believe that such representation will be thought of as very different in this world than in ours, but I'd be very surprised for it not to be there in some form. A large part of having power is how you gain it, and while you mightn't be fussed by a armed coup of competent rulers, I, for instance, could never see them as being as legitimate in their use of power than someone who I had had a voice in choosing/supporting, and I think that attitude will be fairly common as well.

EDIT: Finally mastered the "wrap around text" function. Huzzah!

Well, you say that as someone raised in a democratic or at least republican society.

But yeah, I don't think this is going to be universal. Whether that means (and I think we need to see how monarchy is doing elsewhere to answer) "universal within Rhomania" or "universal anywhere", I'm not sure.

Sufficient to say, any wise ruler will recognize that some level of dissent is inevitable, and the best thing to do is keep it from getting anywhere.

Which does not mean "keep it from happening". Just that - in my honest opinion - it's far better for the state to have the attitude that what you say (as long as it doesn't involve advocating murder or overthrowing the ruler) in a coffeehouse or the like is your business than to stomp on all criticism of the Emperor.

After all, the ability of the common citizen under a democracy to blow off steam without blowing up is one of its better points from the perspective of state stability. Monarchies borrowing the same will do far better than OTL's last examples.

 

[Dominic]

I think we might be more in agreement than we've been sounding. I've been raised in a constitutional monarchy, and while I don't support having someone else's monarch as my head of state, the institution of the monarch is one I can support. Overall I see some powerful reasons to support having a monarch, whether they are inactive such as in the British Commonwealth, or as we've both envisaged an active Roman Emperor. I think ensuring the competence of a life long ruler (or as the case is likely to be, until they retire at some old age) is more pressing than that of a short term president/prime minister, but so long as the system is kept healthy there's no reason to prevent the Roman monarchy surviving indefinitely. I do however believe that replacing an incompetent monarch needs to be a public affair, if not determined via public input. As Nikephoros has proven in the early 16th century, rising to power through suspicious means helps to breed enemies.

 

[Derekc2]

Persionally I don't want a french revolution in the Eastern Roman Empire. Have it happen somewhere else, like for instance Arles. I want an Arletian revolution or at leas a Franglaish revolutions. They are after all french.

 

[eliphas8]

Persionally I don't want a french revolution in the Eastern Roman Empire. Have it happen somewhere else, like for instance Arles. I want an Arletian revolution or at leas a Franglaish revolutions. They are after all french.

I kind of want a "Roman Revolution" it would be fun seeing what a Rhoman version of that would be like.

 

[Elfwine]

I think we might be more in agreement than we've been sounding. I've been raised in a constitutional monarchy, and while I don't support having someone else's monarch as my head of state, the institution of the monarch is one I can support. Overall I see some powerful reasons to support having a monarch, whether they are inactive such as in the British Commonwealth, or as we've both envisaged an active Roman Emperor. I think ensuring the competence of a life long ruler (or as the case is likely to be, until they retire at some old age) is more pressing than that of a short term president/prime minister, but so long as the system is kept healthy there's no reason to prevent the Roman monarchy surviving indefinitely. I do however believe that replacing an incompetent monarch needs to be a public affair, if not determined via public input. As Nikephoros has proven in the early 16th century, rising to power through suspicious means helps to breed enemies.

Yeah. Even for people like me who are more concerned with what you do with power than how you get it, the sorts of men you want as emperor aren't the sorts who go about it by backstabbing, for the most part (the exceptions are too rare to count, but they do exist).

Ideally, there would be two things (as far as I can tell from what we agree on): Some method of expressing what one feels about the emperor and/or his potential replacement, and some way of getting the Emperor removed that doesn't involve violence as an inevitable outcome.

The details are more controversial, but that the system has to meet those two criteria seems to be shared.

Derek: Not sure I follow your logic here.

 

[Dominic]

Yeah. Even for people like me who are more concerned with what you do with power than how you get it, the sorts of men you want as emperor aren't the sorts who go about it by backstabbing, for the most part (the exceptions are too rare to count, but they do exist).

Ideally, there would be two things (as far as I can tell from what we agree on): Some method of expressing what one feels about the emperor and/or his potential replacement, and some way of getting the Emperor removed that doesn't involve violence as an inevitable outcome.

The details are more controversial, but that the system has to meet those two criteria seems to be shared.

Pretty much, any disagreement would appear to be in matters of degree, on the major points anyway.

 

[Derekc2]

Yeah. Even for people like me who are more concerned with what you do with power than how you get it, the sorts of men you want as emperor aren't the sorts who go about it by backstabbing, for the most part (the exceptions are too rare to count, but they do exist).

Ideally, there would be two things (as far as I can tell from what we agree on): Some method of expressing what one feels about the emperor and/or his potential replacement, and some way of getting the Emperor removed that doesn't involve violence as an inevitable outcome.

The details are more controversial, but that the system has to meet those two criteria seems to be shared.

Derek: Not sure I follow your logic here.

Well I was more doing an an reference that the French revolution happened in France, yeah caption obvious, but guesse who are also have their heartlands in OTL french lands... England-France and Arles! So if their's a frenchesk like revolution I want it to happen in those two nations.

 

[Ze Kaiser]

Ah, yes. I have so been looking forward to these "inevitable" ideas of democracy and OTL's Enlightenment developing in the same way as OTL (under new names of course... for the most part!) and ripping the 1.5 millenium old Roman Throne a new one. Just like the "inevitable" OTL nationalism that's going to appear without a doubt, right on time, in roughly 300-350 years and rip Rhomania a territorial new one.

 

[Elfwine]

Well I was more doing an an reference that the French revolution happened in France, yeah caption obvious, but guesse who are also have their heartlands in OTL french lands... England-France and Arles! So if their's a frenchesk like revolution I want it to happen in those two nations.

But . . . why would a revolution like the OTL French revolution happen in Gaul TTL?

 

[Ze Kaiser]

But . . . why would a revolution like the OTL French revolution happen in Gaul TTL?

Because OTL ideas of democracy and nationalism are "inevitable" according to several people here. That's why.

 

[Evilprodigy]

Because OTL ideas of democracy and nationalism are "inevitable" according to several people here. That's why.

They are only inevitable once the Industrial revolution comes into play.

 

[Derekc2]

I would be really pissed off if the Eastern Roman Emporer was overthrown. I want the Eastern Roman Empire to never lose and if they became France in this situation 1. I would want them to lose becouse I don't want them to stay as an evil republic 2. They would lose and my eastern romanphilic self would be sad. 3.If they don't lose my monarchistic self would be pissed off. So I don't want to get into this position in the first place I want 1.They revolutionaries being somebody else so they can be the evil republic.2 The eastern roman empire would win and therfore the eastern Romanphilic self would be happy with the Eastern Roman empire winnig.3. The monarchist in me would also be happy with the royale thrashing of the rovolutionaries. Also the revolutionaries hated christianity which would add to my "must lose" dommeaner.

And if they lose...well I can think we all would not be happy about that.

 

[Derekc2]

But . . . why would a revolution like the OTL French revolution happen in Gaul TTL?

The reason why I want it in Gaul is sentimental valou and also Arles is said to be centrialising, so their is obviously something leading up to it.

 

[Ze Kaiser]

They are only inevitable once the Industrial Revolution comes into play.

And why is that? Why do people seem to think that TTL is going to be OTL with a surviving Rome and a few different names in terms of development?

 

[Elfwine]

And why is that? Why do people seem to think that TTL is going to be OTL with a surviving Rome and a few different names in terms of development?

Wishful thinking?

Speaking for myself, I think some level of democracy somewhere is probable, but more because not all monarchies are going to be able to make things work than because "democracy is inevitable".

 

[Dominic]

Because OTL ideas of democracy and nationalism are "inevitable" according to several people here. That's why.

Not sure if you're referring to me here or not, but to be honest to some degree at least these ideas are inevitable, because to some degree they've always existed! Nationalism is just another iteration of tribalism, while democracy in its most basic form is just one of those ideas human beings tend towards when solving group problems. While no one is suggesting that Europe and elsewhere will undergo the same sort of changes to its societies as in OTL, these "enlightenment ideas" are probably always going to emerge in sufficiently advanced TLs because they're just updated versions of previous ideas, albeit widely distributed and codified. Most of them just cover basic human drives; nationalism is just another community-defining tool, while democracy allows people to feel like they're in some way important and in control of their collective destinies. Saying that more sophisticated versions of ideas already extant in 1528; democracy obviously is represented in republican governments, while nationalism has already been noted to be in its infancy in Rhomania and perhaps the United Kingdoms and HRE to the tinniest degree; is not going to create another TL191.

 

[Elfwine]

The main thing about nationalism is that the idea of identifying yourself as - for instance - Breton - as if that gets in the way of your loyalty to or lies behind your loyalty to a given polity is not a given.

Meanwhile, its arguable that democracy has a less than credible history looking at the classic models.

 

[Evilprodigy]

And why is that? Why do people seem to think that TTL is going to be OTL with a surviving Rome and a few different names in terms of development?

Well with the industrial revolution you will have an influx of growth to the cities and an increase in pay as well as the creation of a middle class and an economy that likes to trade with other parts of the world, be it foreign countries or an empire they build with colonies, note that this would be over time, not immediate.

A middle class likes the idea that things can stay the way they are and would like stability, absolute monarchy does not give you that when one guy can decide to go to war or not, not to mention when you have a middle class that means they most likely have spare time and excess income (hence why they are a middle class) and that helps to drive the creation of organizations with governmental influence in the form of corporations and unions.

Eventually hereditary land owners in the countryside lose influence to a more meritocratic upper class made by the industrial capitalist. I feel all of this stuff together leads to a population that wants a government that is looking out for their best interest and can be replaced if they don't do a good job or doesn't serve them properly with the idea that a government's power is given to them by the people and not by right of birth or by that of god. With technology advancing (and atheism along with it) as well as the loss of a hereditary upper class the idea of the divine right to rule just stops. The only reason to keep the monarchy would be tradition, which would gain a bit of traction and is the reason Britain and many commonwealth nations still have a monarchy, among other things.