Honorius was the worst emperor, he could have had the Gothic armies fight for him under much much better conditions than eventually had to be given, and instead he got Rome sacked. He was a possibly the worst emperor in western history.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Stilicho certainly wasn't death to Honorius, not for 13 years. If you mean Stilicho blocked Honorius' road to real power, sure. But death no, he needed an emperor to give him legitimacy.
Of course, an effective reformer Honorius would get a very different appreciation from posterity. As you say he'd have faced the same giant problems that Stilicho's real successor Aetius did and would have been as unlikely to overcome them. But the Honorius who actually existed did something worse than just being ineffective, he murdered his best general and allowed his army to desert, thus eliminating the strongest force for keeping the WRE together in some form. If only he'd stuck to being ineffective! I emphasize structural factors, particularly in those historical eras where our information about conjectural factors is limited and/or unreliable. In the case of the WRE I don't believe a strong emperor could have succeeded unless he got really lucky at retaking Africa. Majorian was a capable general and strategically minded enough to focus his efforts where it counted but he still failed. As for Honorius, IMO very stupid people do have the agency to make a bad situation worse.
Not to get into a fight about facts and a history which is poorly understood due to the paucity of sources but...
And none of this is meant to disagree with you...
But if you were Honorius without the benefit of hindsight, and with the imperfect and biased information which he had... What would you do?
Stilicho commanded your army and at any moment could have turned on the capital and taken over. Yes, he was loyal when you were a kid, but now when you are older and can move against him, is that relationship the same?
I think not.
So... There is a guy who can overthrow you and take the throne and has all the resources and ability to do so... Do you not move against him?
Ultimately, it was disastrous, but Honorius was not exactly a seer.
I think he was acting entirely about self preservation of the little world (however debauched and run by debauched persons it may have been) and acted rationally.
The guy wasn't Trajan or Constantine or Diocletian. He was a kid who grew up raising pigeons and having his every need catered to by slaves. He had no perspective. And he knew , I think that he wasn't going to be able to counter someone like Stilicho in open conflict. So he acted out of petty spite and base fear.
Again, we don't have great records about what happened at the time, but I think that we don't look at a lot of history from the perspective of the people living it.
Supposing a smart Honorius... alright, I like the thought experiment.
First, realize Stilicho can't usurp the throne himself, he needs a legitimizing emperor of citizen descent who's accepted by the ERE. I wouldn't hold it against Honorius to murder a rival for the throne but he should have realized Stilicho wasn't one.
Second, think about power bases. Stilicho's is the army. Your own power base is your legitimacy and potentially your connection to the ERE. This is not a force that will stand up to an army but it could subvert one. If you dispose of him, think of a way to take over that power instead of letting disperse or worse, defect to an enemy. Using murder to dispose of an army commander is not a bad method, as long as you have a plan to retain his army. Discreetly cultivate other generals, if possible. There's always another ambitious general whom you can play off against the current strongman, but that won't help you unless you can take control in some way. Can you gather some funds or find moneylenders for when the time comes? You're not in a hurry, Stilicho won't kill you unless he has found another source of legitimacy. You could even just outlive him.
In the meantime how do you strengthen your own power base? Begin with legitimacy, you could gain that by being frugal and generous to people in times of adversity (plenty of opportunity there). Or as Octavianus did, by pretending to be old-fashionedly virtuous. You won't be strong enough to challenge Stilicho directly on marriage politics, at least not in the beginning, but if you work at it, you could perhaps convince him that your legitimacy is to his benefit. Yield where you have to yield, while working steadily and quietly to build your own name in areas that don't appear directly political.
This strategy requires thinking about converging interests between you, Honorius, and Stilicho, your general. He wants stability at his back so work together to promote capable governors who know that loyalty to him doesn't have to mean disloyalty to you. Provide him with more funds than he could get without your support. Make yourself if not indispensable, at least costly to replace. Strike only if absolutely necessary or when you are prepared to take over his power base, until that time play a waiting game.
It doesn't require Stilicho to be a Roman in good standing to put a knife to your throat and make you a puppet.
Admittedly the example I am going to give is 1400 years later is the 100 days reform of Qing China which was halted by The Empress Dowager who in her waning days murdered the emperor who had been kept in isolation for two decades.
Edit
I had a really good follow up to the above but the internet did away with it and I don't have the energy to replace the work of genius that was here.
Admittedly the example I am going to give is 1400 years later is the 100 days reform of Qing China which was halted by The Empress Dowager who in her waning days murdered the emperor who had been kept in isolation for two decades.
Edit
I had a really good follow up to the above but the internet did away with it and I don't have the energy to replace the work of genius that was here.
Last edited:
Augustus' power was not based on his supposed virtue but on the fact that he controlled the army and who controls the army owns the empire. That's a fact that did not change in all of Roman history.
So I have to agree with Yakman here that there is not much Honorius could have done to preserve his position.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the barbarian threat wasn't really understood in that particular moment. Yes whole tribes crossing into the empire and making a mess in Gauls was grave but that didn't necessarily meant the empire was on the brink of extinction.
Goths already made a mess in the East not so long ago and that part of the Empire made it out okayish so why the West would be different ?
So I have to agree with Yakman here that there is not much Honorius could have done to preserve his position.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the barbarian threat wasn't really understood in that particular moment. Yes whole tribes crossing into the empire and making a mess in Gauls was grave but that didn't necessarily meant the empire was on the brink of extinction.
Goths already made a mess in the East not so long ago and that part of the Empire made it out okayish so why the West would be different ?
The Balkans made it out OK-ish, but only in the sixth century. It remained a mess from the first Goth incursion until well after the WRE fell. The ERE held on to the cities where it drew some taxes but most of it, and all of the food needed for Constantinople, came from Asia Minor, the Levant and particularly Egypt. The various barbarian peoples wandering and sometimes settling in its European lands provided mercenaries, also a useful resource but at very high cost.
Of course Augustus gained power through the army and he was indeed careful to keep it under his control. But he also sharply decreased its number and took great pains to restore civilian government, portraying himself as first citizen rather than military ruler. Why did he do so? Why did Stilicho find it useful for 13 years to keep Honorius around? Because the cost of running an empire solely through military repression is very, very high. People obey and pay taxes much more readily when they think their government is legitimate. This is a fact that has not changed in all of human history.
Both of you ignore the fact that Stilicho did not murder Honorius. Not when he was a child but also not for 9 years after he reached the age of adulthood, by Roman standards. A threat from someone who held power over you for more than a decade, while not killing or deposing you, just can't be said to be acute. There was no reason to act at the moment Honorius did, he had time.
IMO Honorius could have taken that time to develop a power base of his own, which obviously couldn't be an army as that would be a direct challenge to Stilicho and thus break the balance of power in the WRE. Although legitimacy was not as strong a force as military might (at least not at that time) it was an option worth exploring. Not by the real Honorius but by an imaginary smart one, as per Yakman's challenge. Somewhere in between the real and that imaginary one stands a merely not incredibly stupid Honorius who would at least have thought of something to do to keep the army from deserting to his enemies after he murdered its general.
You know what I meant the threat was not fully understood when Honorius assasinated Stilicho. Sure Gauls and Illyria would probably fall in chaos for a few decades but that's well worth the risk.
Nobody understood how weak the west was and that Iberia and Africa the most secure provinces would ironically be the first to fall.
There was appareance and there was reality.
As you know and said Augustus himself was just one of many warlords of the late republics who destroyed all opposition to his rule. And that's precisely because he controlled almost all of the legions directly (through getting imperium of almost all provinces) that he could play the facade of the princeps being just one magistrate among others and not a Tyran.
and nobody dared to challenge him because and ONLY because of the threat of violence. He created the Praetorian to be the only one in the city of Rome to be able to use it if necessary. And he took many precautions to avoid the rise of another rival warlord. Mostly achieved by reducing the Senatorial provinces and monitoring the few remaining proto-consuls so as they do not launch rogue wars like Caesar did and potentially acquire the wealth and gravitas necessary to challenge him.
Now that being said I do not refute that his attempts at portraying himself as a legalist ruler were usefull. On the contrary this no doubt helped cement his rule as even fewer opponents were willing to challenge him as it seemed the Republic would live on. But that is not an argument against his military might afterall it's only because of that absolute power that he coud afford to be lenient otherwise it would have been easy for the Senate to dislodge him using legal or violent means.
Also his attempts to restore the Pre-Punic pact between the aristocracy and the people by restoring morals and rule of law ultimately failed as the empire devolved into a might makes right style of government just like the Republic did after the Punic wars.
What you do not understand is that in the Roman Empire there is no real equivalent to military might in terms of legitimacy not even close. This is why no dynasties no matter how "legitimate" they could be survived a popular enough warlord.
Stilicho by being magister militum in the West ergo the generallismo had nothting preventing him to depose Honorius if he felt like it. Nothing but perhaps an intervention by the East but that's very hypothetical and still remains under the military power problem.
Now indeed that doesn't mean that Stilicho would have betrayed Honorius but the possibility was real and that certainly what motivated the weak emperor. It's not like it did not happened before or would not happened later. Few loyal men withstand for long the temptation of power and if they do not wish power for themselves then maybe for their sons.
In fact it did happen to Honorius in fine. As just a few years later he had to accept to share his rule with another warlord: Constantine III and then his vanquisher Constantius III and that was after the death of Stilicho had divided the legions' loyalties.
Nobody understood how weak the west was and that Iberia and Africa the most secure provinces would ironically be the first to fall.
There was appareance and there was reality.
As you know and said Augustus himself was just one of many warlords of the late republics who destroyed all opposition to his rule. And that's precisely because he controlled almost all of the legions directly (through getting imperium of almost all provinces) that he could play the facade of the princeps being just one magistrate among others and not a Tyran.
and nobody dared to challenge him because and ONLY because of the threat of violence. He created the Praetorian to be the only one in the city of Rome to be able to use it if necessary. And he took many precautions to avoid the rise of another rival warlord. Mostly achieved by reducing the Senatorial provinces and monitoring the few remaining proto-consuls so as they do not launch rogue wars like Caesar did and potentially acquire the wealth and gravitas necessary to challenge him.
Now that being said I do not refute that his attempts at portraying himself as a legalist ruler were usefull. On the contrary this no doubt helped cement his rule as even fewer opponents were willing to challenge him as it seemed the Republic would live on. But that is not an argument against his military might afterall it's only because of that absolute power that he coud afford to be lenient otherwise it would have been easy for the Senate to dislodge him using legal or violent means.
Also his attempts to restore the Pre-Punic pact between the aristocracy and the people by restoring morals and rule of law ultimately failed as the empire devolved into a might makes right style of government just like the Republic did after the Punic wars.
What you do not understand is that in the Roman Empire there is no real equivalent to military might in terms of legitimacy not even close. This is why no dynasties no matter how "legitimate" they could be survived a popular enough warlord.
Stilicho by being magister militum in the West ergo the generallismo had nothting preventing him to depose Honorius if he felt like it. Nothing but perhaps an intervention by the East but that's very hypothetical and still remains under the military power problem.
Now indeed that doesn't mean that Stilicho would have betrayed Honorius but the possibility was real and that certainly what motivated the weak emperor. It's not like it did not happened before or would not happened later. Few loyal men withstand for long the temptation of power and if they do not wish power for themselves then maybe for their sons.
In fact it did happen to Honorius in fine. As just a few years later he had to accept to share his rule with another warlord: Constantine III and then his vanquisher Constantius III and that was after the death of Stilicho had divided the legions' loyalties.
Augustinian Cowardly Escapism
What if Julian had lived much longer and restored the gods that had held Rome together for the centuries when it was strongest?
there was little chance that he would have been able to do so.
The empire was pretty christian by then, and not many people actually liked Julian, who wasn't an exceptional emperor anyway,so there was very little, if any chance of that appening. And either way, while it would have been cultiurally important, it wouldn't have had any affect on keeping the empire going as a polity. There's literally no argument or evidence that reverting to Jupiter worship would have fixed any of the structural tax, elite buy-in, and diplomatic problems that doomed the empire.
Rome had structural issue's that led to significant decline in army recruitment going towards its fall. Perhaps you would think that the old gods were more warlike allowing for more war enthusiasm and recruits yet the Romans had to change the legionary requirments several times in their history for the sake of being able to recruit more men so a systematic shortage requiring reform had propped up before. For example Marius his reforms during the time of the Republic. It was difficult for Rome to have it's required reforms in imperial times, there were not many emperors that lived long enough and had build up enough support to be able to do some reforms and the senators hardly had power or even interrest.
ridiculous.
Rome always had more than enough able-bodied men to defend itself.
It's just that they didn't want to recruit them.
Good to see someone finally answer the Punic propagandist, the snake oil salesman from Hippo. We have already discussed his view in this thread with the implication that there were some who held the opposite view but we haven't seen anyone proclaim it.
Is your contention that Julian's failure marks the end of viability for the WRE?
Roosters Crow in the Morning, Chickenhawks When Your Day Is Done
When did the requirement for all patrician youth to serve end? Typical of their original patriotism, in one Second Century BC Cadet Legion battle, every richkid 18-year-old died. Lives sacrificed from patriotic bravery also left openings for class mobility.
There is this weird modern conception that people back in the day were 'better' than people now.
That is false.
We are the same people. Except that people now have interior plumbing and the internet.
So, yes, do people who have a greater place in society seek better places for their children, of course.
Also everything that you have posted so far has been ahistoric garbage.
Also, one of the big problems was loss of elite support. Basically rich people got increasingly less interested and invested in the overall sucess of the empire, and the biggest problem was this led to decreased taxes. Taxes allow you to pay, equip, and feed soldiers, no taxes, no army, hence why losing Carthage was so terrible, it was one of the primary centers of tax production in the west. That's a primary factor in the strength of Rome, efficient, wide-reaching taxation system that let them raise enough money to equip 6-figure strong standing army. Basically all other concerns RE: the military are secondary.
RIDICULOUS.
This fascination with the legions is just silly. They were a massive drain on the public finances, and were primarily used to topple the Empire. There was nothing, not in the least, until Atilla, which would justify the size and scope of the Roman legion system. It was bad public policy from the start.
Also, the idea that the rich of the early Empire were happy go lucky paying their taxes and then they got corrupt later on is pretty silly.
On the contrary, the legions were absolutely critical to the existence of the Roman Empire. Roman diplomacy relied upon a continuous aura of strength and intimidation to secure its boarders against the various peoples surrounding it. The interior of the empire was far richer than the barbarians surrounding it and it would be raided and dismembered at any show of weakness. As the crisis of the 3rd century and the collapse in 5th showed, when the Roman Empire displayed weakness it was attacked by virtually all its neighbours.
For more detail on Roman diplomacy I strongly recommend Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate by Susan Mattern.
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. They were the largest expense in the empire, you're right there, but you're completely wrong otherwise. The legions needed to garrison countless forts, walls, and cities guarding tens of millions of people, to guard that many people against even raiding parties required enormous expenditure and troop strength, much less periodic invasions, and civil unrest. The legions were literally the core of what made the empire work, without the legions there was no empire, full stop.
It has nothing to do with "happy go lucky" anything, nor does it have to do with corruption, this isn't a Gibbon-esque moralizing, this is the fact that the Roman economic and political elites no longer felt like they had a vested interest in the empire, and without their support, the empire weakened. The principate, and to some extent, the dominate, were excellent at co-opting elites into the imperial system, it's what made the whole system work. Empires need the buy in of elites, without that, they collapse.
The roman empire was powerful because it could raise enormous tax revenues to build infrastructure and pay an enormous number of troops, this was the whole basis for the empire. Raise taxes, pay troops, build roads and harbors for those roads and taxes to move along.