Posted 02/01/2013 7:12 pm
Interesting subject 
The First Triumvirate was the political alliance of Julius Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey.
The alliance allowed the Triumvirs to dominate Roman politics completely, but it would not last indefinitely due to the ambitions, egos, and jealousies of the three; Caesar and Crassus were implicitly hand-in-glove, but Pompey disliked Crassus and grew increasingly envious of Caesar's spectacular successes in the Gallic War, whereby he annexed the whole of the Three Gauls to Rome.
The Second Triumvirate was Octavian, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, and Mark Antony.
Like the First Triumvirate, the Second Triumvirate was ultimately unstable and could not withstand internal jealousies and ambitions. Antony detested Octavian and spent most of his time in the East, while Lepidus favoured Antony but felt himself obscured by both his colleagues, despite having succeeded Caesar as Pontifex Maximus in 43 BC. Consequently, Lepidus cooperated in Octavian's campaign against Pompeius (son of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) but foolishly attempted to seize control of Octavian's victorious legions. Octavian unilaterally expelled Lepidus from the Triumvirate, but allowed him to retain his Pontificate.
I guess from what I read they did work extremely well as a short-term tool for power and change but ultimately collapsed due to in-fighting and a desire for more power by one or all of the three.
Much later we had the Tetrarchy, leadership of four, instituted by Roman Emperor Diocletian, again, initially it seemed a powerful tool but ultimately failed due to struggles for even more power and control.
It could probably be said a Triumvirate or Tetrarchy was a better more productive and powerful system but far more unstable than have one person in charge. The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
The First Triumvirate was the political alliance of Julius Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey.
The alliance allowed the Triumvirs to dominate Roman politics completely, but it would not last indefinitely due to the ambitions, egos, and jealousies of the three; Caesar and Crassus were implicitly hand-in-glove, but Pompey disliked Crassus and grew increasingly envious of Caesar's spectacular successes in the Gallic War, whereby he annexed the whole of the Three Gauls to Rome.
The Second Triumvirate was Octavian, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, and Mark Antony.
Like the First Triumvirate, the Second Triumvirate was ultimately unstable and could not withstand internal jealousies and ambitions. Antony detested Octavian and spent most of his time in the East, while Lepidus favoured Antony but felt himself obscured by both his colleagues, despite having succeeded Caesar as Pontifex Maximus in 43 BC. Consequently, Lepidus cooperated in Octavian's campaign against Pompeius (son of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) but foolishly attempted to seize control of Octavian's victorious legions. Octavian unilaterally expelled Lepidus from the Triumvirate, but allowed him to retain his Pontificate.
I guess from what I read they did work extremely well as a short-term tool for power and change but ultimately collapsed due to in-fighting and a desire for more power by one or all of the three.
Much later we had the Tetrarchy, leadership of four, instituted by Roman Emperor Diocletian, again, initially it seemed a powerful tool but ultimately failed due to struggles for even more power and control.
It could probably be said a Triumvirate or Tetrarchy was a better more productive and powerful system but far more unstable than have one person in charge. The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
