Could the roman empire survived has a elective monarchy?

[Karolus Rex]

I'm reading Peter Darman's The Parthian Chronicles, and it appears that when the King of Kings of the Parthian Empire die's the kings of the Empire would elect one of their one to the office.

During my reading of The Fall of The Roman Empire by Adrian Goldsworthy,he says that the reason behind the failure of the tetrarchy was because you needed an emperor that was stronger than the other co-emperor's, so i came out with this idea:
-the division of the empire came from the need to have one emperor in every possible frontier, to fight an invasion;
-but without a stronger Augustus that could command the other's the sistem fails;

Now Diocletian divided the empire in dioceses, so what if you appont one Caesar to each one of them?This would allow to have a strong presence in the case of invasion from the germanic tribes.

But you still need one strong central power, so my idea came from the Parthian's, the Caesars would elect one of them to become Augustus.

To stop future usurper's the office of Caesar would be hereditary, because this way the Caesar's would be more interested to make sure that their piece of the empire staid intact and to prosper since it would be their sons to inherit.

I know that every time the Emperor died it could happen a civil war but, the chance of a usurper was limited to the number of Caesars, none of them would be more powerful than the others, so if lets say an election ends:
-Caesar x, 8 votes and Caesar y 4 votes, the Caesar that lost could not hope to win a civil war, assuming that the men that elected the new Augustus would help him keep the purple

This would allow the imperial field army's, the Comitatenses, to defend the frontiers instead of being in the capital of the empire miles away from the border's only because the Emperor is afraid that some border general will try to usurp the purple.

So what do you think?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The Parthian Empire had about as much of an elected monarchy as the Romans did, probably less so since the Parthian King had his own crown prince who was his designated successor.

The Roman did pay lip service to an electoral monarchy-the emperor always had to be approved by the Senate, who also granted him his imperial powers. This facade crumbled in the third century, but it had never been nothing more than a facade. A man was emperor solely because of the power of his army and, in an era of stable succession, because he was the chosen successor, no matter how much they pretended they were elected and approved by the Senate.

An elective monarchy simply won't work in Rome because of the nature of the basis for power inherent for anyone to be Roman Emperor. The one time the senate actually put their money where their mouth was with their perceived authority, they were greeted to Maximinus Thrax bursting into Italy and only saved from killing them all because of his failure at Acquilea.

 

[Karolus Rex]

The Roman did pay lip service to an electoral monarchy-the emperor always had to be approved by the Senate, who also granted him his imperial powers. This facade crumbled in the third century, but it had never been nothing more than a facade. A man was emperor solely because of the power of his army and, in an era of stable succession, because he was the chosen successor, no matter how much they pretended they were elected and approved by the Senate.

The only way for the monarchy to work is for the Romans to stop pretending that they were still a Res Publica.

My idea put Rome out of any diocese, keep it has official capital of the empire, and to please the senate let them pretend that the men chosen to the purple, was elected by the senate, or they could just dissolve the senate but let the senatorial class intact.

The Parthian Empire had about as much of an elected monarchy as the Romans did, probably less so since the Parthian King had his own crown prince who was his designated successor.

About the Parthian election i only toke the idea from them, about the crown prince, the Emperor's usually appointed their sons has co-emperor's but with this system, they can't appoint them Augustus or Caesar because the ruler's of the dioceses wouldn't accept it.

 

[god....freyjones]

I doubt much would be different.

Who would oversee the election? Who is to say it wouldn't have been rigged? Or the winner "mysteriously" disappears once he's announced by the Senate or the Pretorians as Caesar?

It would also mean more wars, if there is evidence Senators and/or patricians were bribed with lands or war booty to vote for x Senator or general as Caesar.

The Anglo-Saxons and Normans in England had elected monarchies, but they hardly didn't have succession disputes and/or civil wars.

 

[Karolus Rex]

I doubt much would be different.

Who would oversee the election? Who is to say it wouldn't have been rigged? Or the winner "mysteriously" disappears once he's announced by the Senate or the Pretorians as Caesar?

It would also mean more wars, if there is evidence Senators and/or patricians were bribed with lands or war booty to vote for x Senator or general as Caesar.

The Anglo-Saxons and Normans in England had elected monarchies, but they hardly didn't have succession disputes and/or civil wars.

The objective of the elective monarchy was to lower the number of men that could get to the office of emperor, with a ceaser in each diocese they would have direct command of the army's in their territory so in theory if their was a rebellion of the army the usurper would only control one of the twelve imperial army's it would be very hard for a general to put the empire on a full scale civil war, because they would have to bribe/convince the other army's to follow them.

EX:

Let's say the Caesar in charge of Hispaniae is killed by an usurper, and he get's control of the army. The other's can do one of this things, either they admit him has an equal, or they go to war.

Now admitting that they declare war on the usurper, he would have to face the army's of Africa and Viennensis, admitting that the army's of Italia, Galliae and Britannie are fighting barbarian's. The army in Hispaniae would be compose of 2-3 legion's and the same number of auxiliary cohorts at max 20000-30000 men strong.

Africa would have 10000-15000 to protect the border from the raids and the army of Viennensis would be the same size has the one in Hispaniae

Most of army of Viennensis, would probably have battle experience from fighting along side the tropes from Galliae against the barbarian's.

Africa's army would only have experience again't raider's.

And the only experience of the Hispaniae army would be against bandit's.

The usurper, would have to face an attack from two side's, is chance of victory would be very small, and the officer's of if army would probably kill him, and send is head to the emperor.



And the elective monarchy would exist, to give the Caesars a chance to become Emperor by peaceful mean's, and even if the succession ended like in the HRE at least, they would always have their, "kingdom's".

 

[Zlorfik]

Divide et impera... having powerful Caesars makes the Augustus' position precarious. Better to have them divided/small while creating a substantial personal power base

Call it the austrian way

 

[Agricola]

The roman military was not equally distributed amongst the dioceses. By very good reasons. You had armies of various size in Britannia, Germania, Pannonia, Moesia, Africa, Syria and Egypt. Hispania had just a few cohorts. So you may discuss about 5-6 strong Caesars which might make sense from a military point of view. But politically you get the same mess as with 3 or 4.

The romans used a similar model in the 4th century. Historians called it comitia militaris, a modern term. For example after the sudden death of Julianus and his successor they used a council of the most powerful people to elect a new emperor. Also in the east roman empire, the crown council, composed of the magistri of the two central armies, the leaders of the central office and the royal family contributed a lot to the stability. But they were heavily backed by the senate of Constantinople, which was in the same city and structured fully differently compared to the senate in Rome.

So you might start here and investigate, why even this relatively solid eastern system failed sometimes. From there you might develop a feasible system for the entire empire. If there is any system at all, which scales up to the level of an huge empire. Size was always the most serious issue of the roman empire.

 

[Karolus Rex]

The roman military was not equally distributed amongst the dioceses. By very good reasons. You had armies of various size in Britannia, Germania, Pannonia, Moesia, Africa, Syria and Egypt. Hispania had just a few cohorts. So you may discuss about 5-6 strong Caesars which might make sense from a military point of view. But politically you get the same mess as with 3 or 4.

In The Fall of The Roman Empire Goldworthy uses a list made in the end of the 4th century, begine of the 5th, if i'm not mistaken, and their the dux of hispania had a paper force of 20000-25000, gaul had 50000, britania 10000-15000, italy 50000, and africa 10000-15000, notice that in the moment i'm writhing i don't have the book with me, i'm doing with memory.

The romans used a similar model in the 4th century. Historians called it comitia militaris, a modern term. For example after the sudden death of Julianus and his successor they used a council of the most powerful people to elect a new emperor. Also in the east roman empire, the crown council, composed of the magistri of the two central armies, the leaders of the central office and the royal family contributed a lot to the stability. But they were heavily backed by the senate of Constantinople, which was in the same city and structured fully differently compared to the senate in Rome.

The objective of the election is only to lower the number of people that could become emperor, and to achieve stability. Until the second century only senator's could become senator's, sence they were the one's to have control of the legion's, so you had 400-900 men that could get the power. From the second century, onwards the military command's were controlled by the equestres, that were many more than the senator's.You could control the senator's, but you couldn't control the equestres, sence they were too many and unlike the senator's they didn't had common purpose

So you might start here and investigate, why even this relatively solid eastern system failed sometimes. From there you might develop a feasible system for the entire empire. If there is any system at all, which scales up to the level of an huge empire. Size was always the most serious issue of the roman empire.

Rome felt because, the army spent more time fighting civil war's, that destroyed the ressurce's of the empire. The east survived the west because civil war's were less common. For the fall of the east i blame corruption, overstretching of the empire resources, religious disorder, and the battle of yarmouk and manzikert.

 

[Agricola]

Rome felt because, the army spent more time fighting civil war's, that destroyed the ressurce's of the empire.

This is a major reason, but just one of many. And we should first discuss in detail the major reasons for civil wars in the roman empire. Before we found an answer to this very critical question, we cannot claim, that an elvtive monarchy or even alien space bats could change anything.

The east survived the west because civil war's were less common.

Looking to the survival of the East, this is even not a major reason. But still one of many.

For the fall of the east i blame corruption, overstretching of the empire resources, religious disorder, and the battle of yarmouk and manzikert.

I agree, that with the Battle of Yarmouk (636), the Roman Empire finally had fallen. After the loss of its oriental and african provinces, it was no longer worth to be called an empire. And furtermore it changed dramatically afterwards: politically and culturally.

The Fall of the Western (Sub-)Empire (476) was rather irrelevant and is dramatically overrated. Of course the Roman Empire still existed legally until 1453 or even a few years longer, but this date is also irrelevant from a historical point of view.

Nevertheless, the other reasons you listed are again just some of many.

This does not help us, in order to answer the question, if an elective monarchy would be possible at all in roman times based on the roman and ancient mindset, or if it could avoid civil wars.

An elective monarchy, makes a lot of sense, and is a stable constitution, if the real political power is with a few independent feudal monarchs. Like it was in the early HRE. As always, a constitution is stable, if the people, who have the power, do rule. So the first question about the roman empire is: Who had (was) the power? And accordingly we can discuss about a feasible better constitution.

 

[Karolus Rex]

This is a major reason, but just one of many. And we should first discuss in detail the major reasons for civil wars in the roman empire. Before we found an answer to this very critical question, we cannot claim, that an elvtive monarchy or even alien space bats could change anything.

I think the major reason's for civil war, were this one's:

-lack of loyalty in the army high command, and since the exclusivity of those rank's belonged to the equestrian's, and the emperor's can't control such a large and heterogenen group ( my personal opinion is that the emperor's should had keep the high command in the hand's of the senator's, since they were less people and they had common objective's between the class)

-rule to survive and felling no duty to the empire, almost every emperor after marcus aurelius cared more about being alive than any other thing, they cared more about killing potential rival's than ruling the empire, with emperor's like this it's no surprise that people would rebel

There are many more but in my opinion with an army that for being loyal you have to bribe constantly, and emperor's that cared more about who will they fuck next, instead of trying to improve the empire's stability.

Looking to the survival of the East, this is even not a major reason. But still one of many.

Less civil war = more stability. I know the usual reason's given: that the more powerful economy of the east helped the Eastern part to survive, the fact that the European border's were more defensible, less germans in the army, and etc...

So the first question about the roman empire is: Who had (was) the power? And accordingly we can discuss about a feasible better constitution.

The power was in the hands of the Danubian equestrian elite that has control of the high army position's.
To keep your power you had to try to give them what they wanted or eliminate and replace them with another elite that you can control

 

[jahenders]

While it was never pure, it wasn't always a total facade. Early on the senate would only designate an imperator, or such things, for a specific purpose or emergency and it was temporary. However, the army did soon become a deciding factor and ti got far worse once the Praetorian Guard was set up. Once there, they were almost always the kingmaker and a new emperor's first act was usually to give them a huge payoff, knowing that the failure to do so would mean a near-term assassination.

The Roman did pay lip service to an electoral monarchy-the emperor always had to be approved by the Senate, who also granted him his imperial powers. This facade crumbled in the third century, but it had never been nothing more than a facade. A man was emperor solely because of the power of his army and, in an era of stable succession, because he was the chosen successor, no matter how much they pretended they were elected and approved by the Senate.

An elective monarchy simply won't work in Rome because of the nature of the basis for power inherent for anyone to be Roman Emperor. The one time the senate actually put their money where their mouth was with their perceived authority, they were greeted to Maximinus Thrax bursting into Italy and only saved from killing them all because of his failure at Acquilea.