Dual leadership workable?

[caesar novus]

Seems like the Romans saw no great drawback to having 2 or even more co-leaders, for the military or even civil side once in a while. How is this possible... it is such a textbook recipe for disaster nowdays to have split accountability.

 

How was this done effectively? I guess the generals sometimes alternated days and the emperors tended to have different subregions and maybe a primary guy for breaking tie votes?

 

I can see some advantages, but also deep, deep dysfunctionality. I had 2 co-bosses myself in a joint venture, and they could play the ambiguity like not taking the hard, unpopular decision that needed to be made (leave it to the other guy, who leaves it to the other guy...). Misery, paralysis and fog.

[Northern Neil]

I think the system worked well when it was clear that the co - rulers were subordinate. Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius both had assistants who administered the East, and stretching a point, you could even include Marcus Antonius as an example. I think the problems became more acute when these co-rulers were given imperial titles.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Northern Neil

[CiceroD]

I think it worked in the republic when one's prestige would be in jeopardy if one and ones coruler were at loggerheads. Didn't Cicero in his year as consul have to come to an accomodation so he would not get in the way?

Then again it did seem to work very well for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Then again if Verus had lived longer somthing might have upset the balance. Goes to show how fragile government conventions can be.

[Ingsoc]

The main idea behind the appointment of several magistrates are to prevent one man rule, in Roman eyes it's was the worst thing that could happened and the system of colleague magistrates with equal powers was meant to prevent that (as Tacitus put it: "Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus.") and since the Roman consider a single rule as the worst thing that could happened to the state the upside were greater than the downsides.

 

Of course they had devices to counter the downside, such as the dictatorship which abolished the colleague principle for a time of emergency and the arrangements of duties between the magistrates (i.e the two consuls goes to different fronts, one stay in Rome and the other goes to the provinces, etc.).

[Pompieus]

The intent of "collegiality" was obviously to prevent outrageous or illegal behavior by a single magistrate by having a colleague available to block him. The obvious problem of divided authority was usually solved by assigning the magistrates to different "provincia" where they would not normally interfere with each other. Consuls were usually assigned to command separate armies in different theaters of war, praetors received the jurisdiction over citzens or over foriegners, or a geographic provincial command. Obviously, the system didn't always work but it is amazing that it usually did.

[tk421]

The example of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus is probably the best example of this model. The two worked very much for the good of the Empire and demonstrated that one man rule can work without making the administration of the Empire too difficult for one man to handle.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The example of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus is probably the best example of this model. The two worked very much for the good of the Empire and demonstrated that one man rule can work without making the administration of the Empire too difficult for one man to handle.

 

I don't follow the logic here. Doesn't the success of the Aurelius/Verus team illustrate that two man rule can work?

 

In any case, the model of having two consuls shouldn't be compared to having two emperors or two bosses. For most of the history of the republic, the role of the consul was far more limited than that of an emperor or CEO. An emperor, for example, was not bound by the decisions of his praetors, whereas a consul was. A consul couldn't even call the assemblies to vote on some legislation, at least not without the cooperation of a tribune -- who didn't need the cooperation of the consul. Thus, in both the judicial and legislative spheres, consuls were not autonomous executives, as were the emperors.

[caldrail]

A lot depends on the personalities involved. Few humans are completely compatible, and the Roman system was designed to have a co-ruler as a brake to your own excess. As far as I can see (please put me right if I'm not) the Romans were happy with dual leadership for the simple reason it prevented dictators - the reign of Tarquinus Superbus had made a huge impression on Roman culture. Sometimes it worled, sometimes it didn't. When you take into account that the republican democratic system requiring co-equal consuls to run the cities affairs, it becomes obvious that the system worked well enough for centuries. It was more to do with imperial periods that the system didn't work too well because the co-equal rulers weren't required to get along for one year, but were sharing ultimate power by thier own agreement so the temptation to push the other aside and enjoy the waelth and status alone must have been immense. Not only that, these men had risen to command by the usual Roman intrigues and politics, not by the consent of the people, so they were less inclined to co-operate right from the start.