Elections in the Modern Roman Empire

[Hash]

[gporter] This is my second post in a series of post on elections. Please answer[/gporter]

Seriously (or not since this post isn't) though, somehow Ancient Rome survives to the modern day. It's still an empire, more or less with its AD117 borders but expansion towards Germania, Arabia, interior Africa, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Of course, this isn't plausible at all. So no ripping my idea apart.

What would modern elections to a lower house, with TONS of seats look like? Use whatever system you like and whatever party names you like to simulate the 2006 Roman elections.

I'll post my ideas later on.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Empire is fragile politically, with parties organized at the provincial level organized into voting blocks in the Imperial Senate based on three separate axes:  Latin/Greek, Republican/Democrat, and Liberal/Communal.

Latin/Greek is primarily a language based distinction between the western and eastern halves of the empire, with the Germanic and other peripheral provinces forming a swing block that keeps either side from gaining primacy.  Over the centuries other secondary distinctions have arisen to supplement the language based one.  The principal secondary distinctions at present concern whether imperial inheritance should trace through the female or not.  (Generally Latin=no ; Greek=yes; with a few radicals suggesting that Empresses should be allowed to rule in their own right).

Republicans favor a strong central imperial government while Democrats favor power being held at the local level. 

Liberals want to end state subsidies for bread and circuses so as to allow people to choose for themselves how to spend their denarii.  Communalists favor expanding them.  Liberals and Communalists also differ on the issue of slavery.  Liberals want to emancipate the slaves, now that the mechanization of agriculture and housekeeping has largely eliminated the need for them, while communalists argue that the slaves are not ready for freedom and thus need the continued subsidies to keep them alive and non-rebellious.  Neither party bothers to consider what the slaves might want.

[Hash]

I'd personally also think of many regionalist parties seeking independence, maybe even controlling some provincial governments.

[afleitch]

I'd personally also think of many regionalist parties seeking independence, maybe even controlling some provincial governments.

It is likely that the empire would have expanded beyond the Rhine and Danube; Germania would be a vassal state that, if drawn into the Empire would have strong elemts of regionalism. Caledonia too would have been subdued eventually - by trade if not by war; I expect Caledonia to also exhibit regional autonomous traits for example. Other that that there would be a 'uniformity' across the empire with divisions based on geography and the odd cultural split.

Ethnically the empire would be mixed, but not more so than Europe is today - just that it would have happened across a longer timescale. For example, Meditteraneans, Nordics etc would still be the dominant race in their hartlands, but there would be a mix - then again there may have been less of a mix than occured in reality after the fall of the Empire (UK is a case in point)

I prefer to pretend Christianity becomes no more than another 'cult' among the many and that there is no east/west split.

The Empire could probably only function as a heavily federalised state; a cross between the current EU and the USA



Excuse the source.

[Hash]

A federal model is what I had in mind, with strong provincial governments.

[Person Man]

What's interesting about that eugenics model is that there is a geneticist now that found several genomic markers that "kinda sortof" show historical movements in halogenic groups.

For example, the Slavs, Celts, Latins and most other pre-historic europeans are in the R halogenic group. The Germans and Vikings are generally group I and the Greeks are group J. What's interesting is that both I and J started in more or less the same place....and what's interesting is that all of these presences are strong in the part of Italy my father's side came from.

[Lief 🗽]

I doubt they'd still have an Emperor, in much the same way that enduring empires like China and India no longer have Emperors/Monarchs.

[Person Man]

Yeah, and India is still a bit socialist and China is nominally Communist now.

[12th Doctor]

I'd personally also think of many regionalist parties seeking independence, maybe even controlling some provincial governments.

It is likely that the empire would have expanded beyond the Rhine and Danube; Germania would be a vassal state that, if drawn into the Empire would have strong elemts of regionalism. Caledonia too would have been subdued eventually - by trade if not by war; I expect Caledonia to also exhibit regional autonomous traits for example. Other that that there would be a 'uniformity' across the empire with divisions based on geography and the odd cultural split.

Ethnically the empire would be mixed, but not more so than Europe is today - just that it would have happened across a longer timescale. For example, Meditteraneans, Nordics etc would still be the dominant race in their hartlands, but there would be a mix - then again there may have been less of a mix than occured in reality after the fall of the Empire (UK is a case in point)

I prefer to pretend Christianity becomes no more than another 'cult' among the many and that there is no east/west split.

The Empire could probably only function as a heavily federalised state; a cross between the current EU and the USA



Excuse the source.

The Modern SNPA isn't a racist group.  At least not an aggressively racist group.  Nothing to excuse.

[12th Doctor]

P.S.  In ffact, there really doesn't appear to be anything racist about the site.  The Introduction specifically refutes the use of the site for racist purposes and from what I can tell they are generally only interested in physical anthropology.






As for the question... I just have a very hard time getting around the idea that, even had the Empire not fallen, chances are it would have split apart anyway.  By 100 AD the Latin being spoken in Spain, France, etc was already significantly diverging from "proper" Latin... and yes, believe it or not, there are accounts that prove this.  The people would have found their identiy elsewhere and split from Rome, either peacefully, or otherwise.  If nothing else, the preservation of the Empire would likely only have turned the clock foward on French, Spanish and English nationalism, though they would have taken a different form.  Protected trade, lack of a simple daily struggle to survive, etc probably would have heightened awareness of similarities and differences.

Odds are that by the time the Little Ice Age hit, we would already be talking about sperate entities... and if we weren't then the spread of the plague (which would have traveled on the Roman trade routes) and the onset of the Ice Age would have caused enough upheaval to make it happen, as a powerless and out of touch government in Rome would not be able to respond to the call, while local leaders were able to step up.

[Verily]

Is the Empire pagan or Christian? That would really affect the political atmosphere...

[Verily]

National Imperial Party: weakly Latin nationalist, populist, perpetually largest party, strongest in Italia, Gallia, and Britannia as well as Dacia and Taurica
Latin Left: Latin-speaking but non-nationalist, left-wing, anti-monarchy, strongest in Hispania and North Africa as well as the Scandinavian and Arabian hinterlands
Greek Socialist Movement: weakly Greek nationalist, left-wing, strongest in Anatolia
Free Republican Party: cross-lingual, free-marketeers with strong social-liberal bent, strongest in Hellas and the major urban centers of Syria-Palaestina and Italia as well as Aegyptus
Party of Greeks: Greek nationalist, support diffuse in all Greek-speaking areas
Party of Faith and Traditions: cross-lingual, supporters of religious faith in all forms, strong Platonic influences and therefore actually socially moderate to liberal, most support in interior semi-rural provinces, especially Germania, Thrace and Anatolia, as well as in the traditionalist areas of Hellas that do not bend towards Greek nationalism
"The Party" (name in Hebrew, as opposed to all above in Latin and/or Greek): Jewish nationalist, only relevant in Syria-Palaestina and Arabia Inferior

Election of 2758 AUC Results (MMP)
National Imperial Party: 579
The Left Bloc (Latin Left & Greek Socialist Movement): 391 (252 & 139)
Free Republican Party: 244
Party of Greeks: 95
Party of Faith and Traditions: 91
"The Party": 41

The election was a major defeat for the Left Bloc, which had formed a government for the first time in four decades after the 2754 elections. Support for the National Imperial Party rebounded after a series of confrontations between anti-monarchist factions in the government and Emperor Julian V which culminated in the Emperor dismissing the government two months early. In their usual display of nationalism, the Roman people backed their Emperor over the frustrated anti-monarchist left and punished the Latin Left particularly with their worst defeat in memory, losing all of their district seats in Britannia and Italia and all but one in Gallia. Still, after their stunning defeat in 2754, the National Imperial Party has not rebounded to historical levels, and it seems unlikely that the near-single party state that endured throughout the reign of the popular Emperor Julian IV will return now under Julian V.

Government: National Imperial Party and Party of Faith and Traditions form a coalition with the Free Republican Party tacitly supporting them

Also to note, Greek at this point is confined to Hellas, Anatolia, Syria-Palaestina and Aegyptus while Latin has wrapped around Greek and become the language of Arabia, Taurica and Dacia, all in the East, as well as a large minority in Aegyptus and about even with Greek in Syria-Palaestina.

[Hash]

Do you see any important secessionist or nationalist parties emerging in Gaul, Germania (they're Roman now), or any other spot on the European continent that's non-Greek?

[Verily]

No, I don't. Greco-Roman culture is fairly monolithic, and, assuming it survives, it easily overwhelms local Germanic, Slavic and Arabian cultures in the areas into which it would expand. Bear in mind that Britannia was actually one of the most staunchly loyal Roman areas under the Empire despite being at the fringes; generally, the fringes adopted Roman culture most ardently, while by the establishment of the Empire the internal Latin-speaking areas (Gallia, Hispania, Mauretania, Africa, etc.) had been fairly well assimilated.

[Verily]

To expand, there was really no sense of "regional" nationalism (perhaps best characterized in modern terms as ethnic nationalism, though even that doesn't quite capture the suggestion) in ancient Rome. Yes, regions occasionally revolted, but this was not the will of the local people, who by and large had no sense of community outside of family, village and empire, but local governors and/or generals (who were usually ethnic Latins and nearly always ethnic Italians until very late in the empire; more importantly they didn't share an ethnicity with the locals) simply trying to seize power for themselves.

Assuming a relatively stable democratic system can be established, there is no reason to suggest that such revolts would continue, though you might end up with a military-guided "democracy" as in Thailand, for example.

[Verily]

Some further notes:

The electoral system used is broadly MMP, with about half of the Senate elected on lists and the other half from local constituencies. There are actually two separate list-regions, Syria-Palaestina and everywhere else, as the Romans were concerned with the idea of Jewish nationalists representing everyone else, and, as historically, have some grudging respect for Hebrew civilization as even older than Greece. Syria-Palaestina has 154 seats; the rest of the Empire has 1087 seats. Seats have been added to the Senate more or less consistently since the final accoutrements of the old Senate were abolished in the Reform of 2519, which removed the vestiges of hereditary Senate membership as well as requirements of wealth to be a Senator and reduced the size of the Senate from several tens of thousands to (at the time) 501.

The Reform was enacted by Imperial fiat under Dorian III, and at the time was very controversial, with many of the hereditary Senators (who comprised about half of the chamber, with most of the rest at the time appointed by the Emperor) revolting and forming their own government that was not wholly defeated until the Battle of Sirmium six years later. (It should be noted that the Rebel Senate quickly fell into chaos due to competing interests among the powerful leaders, and although they did not disappear until after Sirmium, realistically they were doomed from the day they left Italy following the recapture of Ravenna less than three months after the revolt began.)