Decimation...

[Smaug]

What if one of the Roman Emperors got tired of the Senate always thwarting his plans? He decides that they need to be punished in some way, but can't go after any particular individual. What if he enacted the military tradition of Decimation?

The Senators are forced to draw lots, with one in 10 or 20 killed. It would leave out the possibility that the Emperor was picking on individuals, and yet still send a message to the Senate that they should really think about cooperating with him.

Not going in any direction with this, I just thought that it would be nice if the Senate had the same threat hanging over them that the Roman Military did.

I'm thinking he can only do this so often, maybe every two years, but at his descretion. It would certainly give the Senate something to think about when they get uppity.

At any rate it was just a thought. I'm kinda sick that way

 

[abas]

looks ineresting

 

[Prunesquallor]

It's not "kinda sick", it's "kinda silly". What period are you talking about? What's this about "always thwarting his plans"? I think you've been watching GLADIATOR too often.

 

[bluestraggler]

The Emperors needed the Senate. Despite their shortcomings, the senators provided a body of educated, experienced administrators needed to govern the empire. Even those emperors who tried to terrorize the Senate into submission, like Caligula and Nero, tried to win its co-operation. When they instituted a reign of terror and humiliation, they quickly found themselves on the business end of a dagger.
Decimation would have been a permanent, institutionalized terror that would have generated ever more assassination plots. In addition to the constant state of fear, the aristocratic senators would have been mortified to be treated like common soldiers.
Yes, the Senate was constantly thwarting the Emperor’s plans. I don’t see what’s wrong with that statement. Senatorial opposition to the administration of Claudius, a first-rate emperor, is an obvious example. However, the fact that the entire Senate wasn’t put to the sword shows how important its role was.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I think decimation was something that was gradually abandoned, except for a brief revival by Crassus in order to punish some legions that fled before Spartacus.

 

[Prunesquallor]

BS- can you actually give me a single example of the Senate thwarting an Emperor? When an Emperor fell, it was usually family conspiracy, the Guard turning against him, or provincial revolt. The vulnerability of the Senate is quite obvious through the reigns of the Julio Claudians (even Claudius is reckoned by Suetonius to have executed about 35 of them) and Domitian whose reign of terror made him loathed by the senators. By the mid second century the Senate was of no importance save as a pool of administrators- and they were in the Senate because of their use to the imperial system, their status as senators was entirely secondary. About the only action by the Senate as a body that I can think of was the elevation of Nerva to the throne- and he had to select an heir who could control the army.

 

[Midgard]

BS- can you actually give me a single example of the Senate thwarting an Emperor? When an Emperor fell, it was usually family conspiracy, the Guard turning against him, or provincial revolt. The vulnerability of the Senate is quite obvious through the reigns of the Julio Claudians (even Claudius is reckoned by Suetonius to have executed about 35 of them) and Domitian whose reign of terror made him loathed by the senators. By the mid second century the Senate was of no importance save as a pool of administrators- and they were in the Senate because of their use to the imperial system, their status as senators was entirely secondary. About the only action by the Senate as a body that I can think of was the elevation of Nerva to the throne- and he had to select an heir who could control the army.

The Senate attempted to reassert its power during the earlier part of IIIrd Century Crisis, going as far as proclaiming "Senatorial Emperors" to oppose one of the soldier-Emperors, and plotting with the Gordians to attempt to bring them to power. So, it was down, but not quite out yet... on the other hand, by Diocletian's (or, some even would say by Aurelian's) ascent to the throne, they were reduced to become largely a non-entity, becoming even more of such in IVth century, when last trappings of republican rule were out.

 

[Susano]

Yes, but during the Crisis, teh central power (be that Emperor or Senate) didnt have much authority either way, so I would hardly let that resurgence count. It was meaningless. And even THEN it failed!

 

[Prunesquallor]

Midgard- I assume you're talking about the appointment of Pupienus and Balbinus as co-emperors after the defeat of Gordianus's revolt in North Africa. This is, I'm afraid, more a sign of Senatorial impotence than anything else. They realised that Maximinus would take revenge for their expressions of support for Gordianus and in desperation set up two elderly senators as his rivals. Maximinus was killed- but only because the Praetorians opposed him and his own army finished him off when their supplies were cut off. Within three months the Praetorians had murdered Pupienus and Balbinus and set up another emperor- which shows where the real power lay.

 

[Midgard]

Midgard- I assume you're talking about the appointment of Pupienus and Balbinus as co-emperors after the defeat of Gordianus's revolt in North Africa. This is, I'm afraid, more a sign of Senatorial impotence than anything else. They realised that Maximinus would take revenge for their expressions of support for Gordianus and in desperation set up two elderly senators as his rivals. Maximinus was killed- but only because the Praetorians opposed him and his own army finished him off when their supplies were cut off. Within three months the Praetorians had murdered Pupienus and Balbinus and set up another emperor- which shows where the real power lay.

That was indeed what I was talking about - it was essentially the last gasp of Senatorial attempt to reinvent themselves and to reestablish their power. But note that your question was what was the last time the Senate was able to thwart the Emperor's plans or oppose him in any significant way - I think under that definition, Pupienus and Balbinus' election, and schemes with Gordianus qualify. That the Senate's plots were ultimately unsuccessful is a sign of its ultimate impotence, yes, but the fact that they were still able to be a major factor in Roman politics at that time was what I was after.

 

[Max Sinister]

After Commodus' Death, they elected the senator Pertinax. He reigned less than three months, then he was killed by the Praetorians, who auctioned the throne afterwards.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Midgard- they hardly thwarted Maximinus (about whom, by the by, Arthur Conan Doyle did a rather enjoyable short story). That was the work of the Praetorians.

Max- the Senate didn't elect Pertinax. He had been selected for the job by the conspirators (the Praetorian Prefect, the Chamberlain, and a mistress which shows you where the power was) and after the murder they simply informed the Senate who the new emperor was.

 

[bluestraggler]

BS- can you actually give me a single example of the Senate thwarting an Emperor? ...The vulnerability of the Senate is quite obvious through the reigns of the Julio Claudians (even Claudius is reckoned by Suetonius to have executed about 35 of them) and Domitian whose reign of terror made him loathed by the senators... About the only action by the Senate as a body that I can think of was the elevation of Nerva to the throne- and he had to select an heir who could control the army.

An emperor didn’t have to be overthrown for his plans to be thwarted. The Senate could frustrate an Emperor through open defiance (assassination plots, etc.) or by sullen passive resistance. Claudius, for instance, had a good chance of permanently reforming the imperial bureaucracy by appointing freedmen to senior administrative offices. His plans were resisted by the senatorial class out of snobbery and self-interest and overturned by Nero (advised by the equestrian Seneca) to appease the senators.
Domitian is actually a good example of the latent power of the Senate. The fact is that he was assassinated because he was loathed by the senatorial class and overthrown in the name of the senate. Also, it’s one thing to say that Nerva was obliged to appoint Trajan as co-emperor; but another way to put it is that Trajan did not seize power – his accession was legitimized by the Senate. He wanted to keep the senators on his side because they could be both useful and dangerous.
It was really only with Septimius Severus that the Senate became totally subservient, and even then it could be a threat. Emperor Maximinus Thrax had the makings of a pretty good ruler but was undermined by revolts provoked by the senatorial class.

 

[Smaug]

Ack!...I wasn't proposing this to be regular Imperial Policy, it was just an idea that I threw out there thinking that if the Emperor's somehow gained this kindof power, how and when might they use it? I proposed that it would be regulated to a point, and that it woundn't usable against any particular person. I thought of it as an Anti-Veto. The Emperor can't lay down Law, but he can punish the Senate, by lot, if they can't come to a concensus that he likes.

Like I said, It was just a thought, that might or might not get the Senate to play ball a bit more than our time. It struck me as the equal of OTL Veto, in Roman times. Sort of a ruthless balance of powers.

I don't condone it neccessarily, but it struck me as kinda just in a way. If the troops are subjected to it, therefore the government should be also. If you want to find a way to make the Emperor subject to this, so be it.

I was just throwing it out there....

 

[Prunesquallor]

BS- you're cobbling together arguments here. Claudius's policy of the use of freedman was continued by Nero. A couple of Claudius's appointees were got rid of but this was to get hands on their property and because they'd opposed the rise of Agrippina. No essential change in practise.
The killing of Domitian had sweet f.a. to do with the Senate, it was a palace conspiracy initiated by his wife.
Trajan didn't grab power- he didn't need to.
Maximinus didn't have the "makings of a pretty good ruler." He was a competent soldier (who still got beaten in the end) and that was that. It was the shortcomings of his administration that sparked off the North African rebellion.
All this about the Senate "legitimising", "recognising", etc. Hmm... the Sun has risen, I proclaim it's dawn.

 

[bluestraggler]

Claudius's policy of the use of freedman was continued by Nero... No essential change in practise.

I disagree. Nero, or more specifically Seneca, essentially reversed the policy of employing freedmen, which was followed for most of the rest of the century.

The killing of Domitian had sweet f.a. to do with the Senate, it was a palace conspiracy initiated by his wife.

Domitian was killed because he was creating too many enemies, endangering the people around him. The Senate was the focus of the opposition. Senators were involved in the conspiracy.

Trajan didn't grab power- he didn't need to.

Exactly. Nerva conferred legitimacy.

Maximinus didn't have the "makings of a pretty good ruler." He was a competent soldier (who still got beaten in the end) and that was that. It was the shortcomings of his administration that sparked off the North African rebellion.

First of all, Maximinus was a highly competent commander with a record of military success on the Rhine and Danube fronts. But as the first emperor to rise from the ranks, he was resented by the senatorial elite, who gave their support to the Gordians and organized resistance in Italy. Maximinus was killed by his troops when they became disenchanted with the progress of his invasion of Italy. His death was a major blow to the Empire.

All this about the Senate "legitimising", "recognising", etc. Hmm... the Sun has risen, I proclaim it's dawn.

An emperor without legitimacy was an emperor with a short life expectancy.

 

[bluestraggler]

I don't condone it neccessarily, but it struck me as kinda just in a way.

I would condone it. The senators were overpaid and overindulged. They undermined the republic with their corruption, incompetence and treachery, then whined incessantly about the loss of liberty when effective government was provided by the emperors. Nothing would have been more justifiable than the occasional decimation. It just wasn’t practical.
It has been said that the senators were a flock of sheep but with a few wolves hiding amongst them.

 

[Prunesquallor]

BS "an emperor without legitimacy was an emperor with a short life expectancy." Quite true. But the only real legitimacy by that time was the support of the Army, the distant descendant of Rome's Town Council was of no importance.
And I could argue with every historical instance you've given, but I've got to meet my better half at the pub.

 

[Paul Spring]

First of all, Maximinus was a highly competent commander with a record of military success on the Rhine and Danube fronts. But as the first emperor to rise from the ranks, he was resented by the senatorial elite, who gave their support to the Gordians and organized resistance in Italy. Maximinus was killed by his troops when they became disenchanted with the progress of his invasion of Italy. His death was a major blow to the Empire.

I remember Gibbon portrayed Maximinus as a sadistic sociopath who executed large numbers of people who opposed him and intended to wipe out the Senate if he had won the power struggle. Then again, that could easily be bias, although more modern books on Rome still tend to portray Maximimus as more of a high-ranking thug than anything else.

 

[Smaug]

BS- can you actually give me a single example of the Senate thwarting an Emperor? When an Emperor fell, it was usually family conspiracy, the Guard turning against him, or provincial revolt. The vulnerability of the Senate is quite obvious through the reigns of the Julio Claudians (even Claudius is reckoned by Suetonius to have executed about 35 of them) and Domitian whose reign of terror made him loathed by the senators. By the mid second century the Senate was of no importance save as a pool of administrators- and they were in the Senate because of their use to the imperial system, their status as senators was entirely secondary. About the only action by the Senate as a body that I can think of was the elevation of Nerva to the throne- and he had to select an heir who could control the army.

Ceasar....Brutus. If you need one. Its just an idea, no need to get all snooty abut it. I just threw it out there for fun. Why so negative? I said that it was just a thing, and you get all uppity....Save it, or be constructive, OK.