Roman Succession

[crazy canuck]

I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...   

I agree to an extent but not having a clear system of succession may also have been a strength with roots going back to the Republic of creating an incentive for men of ambition to distinguish themselves.

Where the system failed imo was it became too centralized  (recall that Augustus always paid at least lip service to power of the Senate) and became expressly a winner take all which increased the insentive for civil war and assassination. If the Emperors had delegated some of their authority (or at least gave the impression of doing so following the model of Augustus) so that there was room for ambitious men to satisfy their ambitions within the State structure without resorting to civil war then things might have been more stable.

[Valmy]

Where the system failed imo was it became too centralized  (recall that Augustus always paid at least lip service to power of the Senate) and became expressly a winner take all which increased the insentive for civil war and assassination. If the Emperors had delegated some of their authority (or at least gave the impression of doing so following the model of Augustus) so that there was room for ambitious men to satisfy their ambitions within the State structure without resorting to civil war then things might have been more stable.

Yeah the system functioned the best when the Senate and the civilians were at least given ceremonial powers and allowed to administrate.  But it required emperors wise and skilled enough to make the charade work.  Sort of like later when sometimes it worked great for some German general to be the puppet master to some emperor but it required the puppetmaster to be skilled and the emperor to play along.

[Malthus]

I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...

Well the primary basis for legitimacy was the army and its support (there was also the Senate but the Senate trying to do it without the army generally led to disaster while the army could safely ignore the civilians).  That was so very basic and fundamental to the Empire it is sort of hard to wrap your head around it not being that way. 

It could have worked if the Generals could have all gotten together at a meeting following the death of each Emperor and elected the new one, like a death of a Pope or something.  But who would be commanding the armies while they did this or who would be ruling the Empire while this meeting was being organized and carried out?

Yes, I agree that it is a structural flaw inherent in the nature of that empire; but it need not have been. After all, the Empire had an institution - the Senate - that had lots of legitimacy; it is not obvious that this *had* to fail to restrain the generals.

[alfred russel]

I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...   

As for the usual Languish nitpicking, I am unfussed. There is no period in the history of any empire that would do any better.

Lets just compare England and Rome for purposes of simplicity.

Succession in England was not a neat legal process. I would suspect that from William the Conquerer through James I there were more reigns with serious challenges to royal authority and/or disputable successions than without. Whether in Rome or in England, people who had a shot to grab power often tried to do so. Ultimate power rested in the hands of those who could call upon military forces. Succession was orderly when the king had an adult heir with a power base in his own right. Otherwise, nobles would fight to either gain the throne outright or to sideline the king and exercise de facto authority. Kings needed to keep allies in key positions, but take care not to give any ally too much power or face a challenge. Close family ties could assist with this, but even that was no guarantee (sons revolted against fathers). In some cases kings even tried to name their sons as co-king within their lifetimes to secure succession.

The Roman Empire could have established succession rules, but I don't see how they would be enforced. The size of the empire demanded multiple strong armies on the frontiers, and the distances meant that close family ties between the commanders was unlikely. A designated successor with an army was only going to be one of many.

IMO, what began to change things was the technology of war. Naval forces and trained armies with firearms were most effective, and these could not be raised through simple feudal levies or the hiring of mercenaries. A centralized army was needed, and this also required a comprehensive taxation system. The need for revenue in excess of what was available under feudal rules pulled power from the kings (and to parliament), but the nobility lost their military power base to revolt. The result was a monarch that was increasingly ceremonial, but also increasingly secure.

[jimmy olsen]

But hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?

YES--from then till 1912.

Shouldn't that be 1945?

The Japanese were a civilizing influence.

The most ridiculous thing you've ever posted? Maybe not, but it sure is a contender.

[crazy canuck]

But hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?

YES--from then till 1912.

Shouldn't that be 1945?

The Japanese were a civilizing influence.

The most ridiculous thing you've ever posted? Maybe not, but it sure is a contender.

Both your sarcasm detector and your ability to read subsequent posts are broken.

[Ideologue]

But hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?

YES--from then till 1912.

Shouldn't that be 1945?

The Japanese were a civilizing influence.

The most ridiculous thing you've ever posted? Maybe not, but it sure is a contender.

OF COURSE IT'S RIDICULOUS IT'S A FUCKING JOKE

I also wonder in what world the Second Sino-Japanese War qualifies as a barbarian invasion.

[Viking]

OF COURSE IT'S RIDICULOUS IT'S A FUCKING JOKE

I also wonder in what world the Second Sino-Japanese War qualifies as a barbarian invasion.

It's more akin to Germanicus' operations across the Rhine as a wasting operation against unruly barbarians. It can't be considered civilized, but it's lack of civilizedness is not so much a presence of barbarianness, but rather a lack of civilization in a normally civilized people.

[jimmy olsen]

But hey the Chinese had their own problems with barbarian invasions as well around this period didn't they?

YES--from then till 1912.

Shouldn't that be 1945?

The Japanese were a civilizing influence.

The most ridiculous thing you've ever posted? Maybe not, but it sure is a contender.

OF COURSE IT'S RIDICULOUS IT'S A FUCKING JOKE

I also wonder in what world the Second Sino-Japanese War qualifies as a barbarian invasion.

The Chinese consider all foreigners barbarians.

[Malthus]

I'd argue that the problems of Rome went far deeper than the obvious difficulties in policing their huge territories - fact is that they never worked out any particular system of succession, guaranteeing that generals would fight it out regularly for the throne. This would have been true even if they kept Roman citizenship the preserve of Romans (or even simply Italians). Peaceful succession was not always the norm for Rome ...   

As for the usual Languish nitpicking, I am unfussed. There is no period in the history of any empire that would do any better.

Lets just compare England and Rome for purposes of simplicity.

Succession in England was not a neat legal process. I would suspect that from William the Conquerer through James I there were more reigns with serious challenges to royal authority and/or disputable successions than without. Whether in Rome or in England, people who had a shot to grab power often tried to do so. Ultimate power rested in the hands of those who could call upon military forces. Succession was orderly when the king had an adult heir with a power base in his own right. Otherwise, nobles would fight to either gain the throne outright or to sideline the king and exercise de facto authority. Kings needed to keep allies in key positions, but take care not to give any ally too much power or face a challenge. Close family ties could assist with this, but even that was no guarantee (sons revolted against fathers). In some cases kings even tried to name their sons as co-king within their lifetimes to secure succession.

The Roman Empire could have established succession rules, but I don't see how they would be enforced. The size of the empire demanded multiple strong armies on the frontiers, and the distances meant that close family ties between the commanders was unlikely. A designated successor with an army was only going to be one of many.

IMO, what began to change things was the technology of war. Naval forces and trained armies with firearms were most effective, and these could not be raised through simple feudal levies or the hiring of mercenaries. A centralized army was needed, and this also required a comprehensive taxation system. The need for revenue in excess of what was available under feudal rules pulled power from the kings (and to parliament), but the nobility lost their military power base to revolt. The result was a monarch that was increasingly ceremonial, but also increasingly secure.

Exactly -- succession in England during the period BEFORE the one I was discussing was a ragged affair. It is the combination of parliamentary power with a quasi-constitutional monarch that provided the legitimacy for stability - leading to a lengthy period of stability in England.

There is nothing that absolutely prevented Rome from evolving in a similar manner, with the Senate playing the foil like Parliament--except of course that it did not. There are lots of reasons it did not, naturally.   

[ulmont]

Going by Raz's definition, I'd say the US Civil War significantly modified the government by violence.  The federal / state balance is radically changed.

[jimmy olsen]

Going by Raz's definition, I'd say the US Civil War significantly modified the government by violence.  The federal / state balance is radically changed.

All hail the 2nd US Republic!

[Ideologue]

Going by Raz's definition, I'd say the US Civil War significantly modified the government by violence.  The federal / state balance is radically changed.

But the central government won.

[Valmy]

Yes, I agree that it is a structural flaw inherent in the nature of that empire; but it need not have been. After all, the Empire had an institution - the Senate - that had lots of legitimacy; it is not obvious that this *had* to fail to restrain the generals.

The Senate had very little legitimacy even when the Empire started.  Augustus actually spent a great deal of capital building it up because he needed it.  And of course there was the Year of the Six Emperors where the Senate won a huge victory but soon discovered they had little credibility even inside the walls of Rome.  People only supported them because they hated Maximinus Thrax so much.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, I agree that it is a structural flaw inherent in the nature of that empire; but it need not have been. After all, the Empire had an institution - the Senate - that had lots of legitimacy; it is not obvious that this *had* to fail to restrain the generals.

The institutional weaknesses of the Senate was what gave rise to the Imperial system in the first place; at the various points it did try to reassert itself, it rarely had any useful impact.

The original structural flaw of the Empire was that the imperial office was an improvisation created by a singular man in unusual circumstances and was a bit of a constitutional cipher that never got properly filled out.  An emperor commanded power and authority because he was the kind of man who could command such power and authority.  There is a certain circularity about imperial power that explains its brittleness in the hands of any particular individual.   The other critical weakness, already alluded to, is the difficulty of a single man administering such far-flung territories.

In the first and second centuries, the weaknesses didn't matter so much because the Empire really functioned as an huge horizontal coalition of semi-autonomous local elites, who derived their own prestige and power from managing the affairs of their local towns and cities.  Imperial succession problems didn't bother them that much as long as the succession crisis didn't involve battles fought in their fields.  At the same time, this system made it easier for a single emperor to run the show, because much of the Empire pretty much governed itself and the emperors could focus on external affairs and internal display. 

Around the 230s, the rise of the Sassanids intesified the pressure on Rome's eastern frontier, and it appears that Rome responded by centralizing the finances of the empire - effectively depriving local control over locally-raised revenues while building up a the size of the imperial bureaucracy.  What that meant was that provincial notables wanting to make a name for themselves steered away from local office (which brought burdens without much prestige or authority) in favor of seeking imperial office.  The competition for imperial patronage intensified - but this could be a big problem in a widely dispersed empire where the emperor could be only in one place.  If you were a Spaniard or Gaulish notable but the emperor and his court were busy away in Syria, your opportunities for high rank and patronage were limited.  But if a "usurper" suddenly sets up shop in Lyon, all of sudden all sorts of new patronage opportunities open up - creating strong incentive for the local bigwigs to support the new guy. Thus, the seemingly odd phenomenon of the "Gaulish empire" of the 3d century where the "usurpers" were pretty much content to hang around in Gaul and not try to make good on the full panoply of imperial claims - they knew once they skipped town, their raison d'etre would diminish.

While the 3d century instability was a serious political annoyance, it wasn't a serious or fatal impact, as evidenced by the fact that the Empire continued to prosper and hold its own quite effectively against external enemies.  The usurpers arguably served a useful service as acting as local poles of authority to cope with military crises at times when the de jure emperor was otherwise detained.

After some decent attemtps to solve this problem with various formal arrangements of co-emperorship, the eventual solution was to formally split the empire in two (and for the western emperor to base himself further north).  This worked pretty well overall but it did depend on having a situation where both "sides" of the Empire were not simultaenously heavily pressed at once (so that neither could come to each others' aid).  Unfortunately that situation didn't last.