Roman Republic Reborn

[Christian W.]

In the year 811, Emperor Stauracius of the Eastern Roman Empire was almost ready to abolish the Empire and declare a Republic.

Stauracius, having ruled for only a couple of months, had been nearly paralyzed after being wounded in the disasterous Battle of Pliska against Bulgars - in which his father, Emperor Nicephorus I, was killed. Due to his condition most viewed him as unable to rule. Stauracius intendent for his wife Theophano to succeed him (the other faction in the Empire hoped his sister's husband Michael Rangabe to succeed him) - or he would abolish the Empire and declare a Republic.

In reality, Stauracius' plans were put down when his oppenents forced him to abdicate and Michael was declared as Emperor.

However, what if - Stauracius, being unable to have his wife succeed him, would have declared end to the imperial authority and declared a Republic? The Roman Senate still existed in Constantinople - it did so until the so called Fourth Crusade - and even though its power base was gradually recuded troughout its history, it had shown that it could still effect issues within the Empire, having for example deposed Emperor Heraclonas in 7th century and named Nicolas Canabus as Emperor in opposition against Isaac II and Alexius IV during the Fourth Crusade.

I can imagine that the Senate would welcome the idea. Rome's power was founded as a Republic, and Greece itself used to be a basket of apples, some of which were related to Republic - Democracy - before being conquered by Rome. The concept of Republic was nothing new to the Greco-Roman world.

[Tim Smith]

Such a scenario could lead to the rebirth of the 'Roman Republic'. But only for a VERY short period of time, probably less than a year.

It would take no longer than that for the Senate to fall apart as its most powerful members jockeyed and squabbled for supreme power - and probably for civil war to erupt. The same way the original Roman Republic fell, only a hell of a lot faster.

Why? Because the problem with Emperor Stauracius and his female successor would be seen as a problem with those particular people - not with the imperial system itself. Only if the SYSTEM fails - the way Rome's original pre-Republic monarchy failed in 506 BC - will the SYSTEM itself be viewed as the problem.

Otherwise, it's simply a matter of who can mass enough power to make himself the next Emperor - and the imperial system continues.

Note - the old Roman imperial system did not fail with Caligula, Nero, or Commodus, who were absolutely dreadful emperors. One might have thought that such disgraceful behaviour from the sovereign would make every Roman long for a return to the Republican system - but no. They just wanted a new Emperor.

[Christian W.]

I beg to differ. After the assassination of Caligula there were serious plans among high ranks to abolish imperial authority: probably only the fact that Claudius - who had been seen as the most unlikely candidate for emperorship - was declared Emperor, thwarted these plans.

I do not belive the Empire would face a civil war. With its holdings under threat from various enemies, a civil war would not improve things. The Empire had been in decline since the Heraclian dynasty, with mostly weak or unpopular Emperors and rampant usurpation. Republic could be seen as an alternative - and it could get support.

[Cantankerous]

The Papal States came into being in 754, so if the Roman Republic had been born, then the seat of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome would have become a miniature city-state within a revived Roman Republic.

[Terry Duncan]

Thread Necromancy from 2008 brought to people by Cantankerous. Topic locked.

Terry