POLL: Longer Lived Severus Alexander?

How does the Roman Empire fare, with Severus Alexander living to 65?

  • Much better than Historically

    Votes: 31 51.7%
  • Slightly better than Historically

    Votes: 23 38.3%
  • Roughly the same as Historically

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Slightly worse than Historically

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Much worse than Historically

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    60
Let us assume that Severus Alexander lives to a moderately old age. We'll go with 65, which is how old Septimius Severus was when he died. That gives Alex an extra 4 decades of rule, dying in AD 273/274. Let us also assume that he stays in power the entire time.

How much of an impact does this have on the Roman Empire? Consider the following:
- There would be 26 Roman Emperors in the same timespan, in our history.
- This is also the period in which the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires rose and fell.
- This covers almost the entirety of the Crisis of the Third Century, historically.

I will leave it up to you to personally define the various degrees in the answers.
 
How does he get to reach such an age? That seems to require a much better behaved army than OTLs.

Even if by some stroke of luck he does, if the army behaves the same as OTL then things probably don't change much. The 26-emperor period just starts a generation later.
 
Rome was in objective trouble in 3rd century: both of the major foes that Rome had been bullying for 2 centuries (Germans and Persians) had adapted and got better.
It was not impossible for Rome to adapt. Persians and Germans did not get weaker in 4th century, but Rome adapted to deal with that.
The problem is that Rome did not handle the adaptation well. There was the 3rd century crisis before the 4th century recovery.
How to alleviate or avert the 3rd century crisis and handle the adaptation to new conditions better than in OTL?
 
Rome was in objective trouble in 3rd century: both of the major foes that Rome had been bullying for 2 centuries (Germans and Persians) had adapted and got better.
It was not impossible for Rome to adapt. Persians and Germans did not get weaker in 4th century, but Rome adapted to deal with that.
The problem is that Rome did not handle the adaptation well. There was the 3rd century crisis before the 4th century recovery.
How to alleviate or avert the 3rd century crisis and handle the adaptation to new conditions better than in OTL?



Well, in the end it took Diocletian to stem the tide of anarchy. Is there another potential Diocletian earlier in the century?
 
IMHO:

Germania at the time of Alexander Severus was in a sort of sweep spot akin to Gaul during the time of Caesar - rich and powerful enough to warrant conquest, yet not rich rich and powerful enough to prevent said conquest. Anything much earlier and the Romans would see no point in taking the place, anything after the crisis and the Romans can't take the place. So if he plays his cards right Alexander Severus could potentially rightfully earn the cognomen 'Germanicus' by taking everything up to the Elbe. Major butterflies come the Volkerwanderung, as the tribes now on Rome's new frontier are not strong enough to be life-threatening to the Empire, on account of not having had the prolonged contact with Rome that lifted up their OTL cousins.
 
IMHO:

Germania at the time of Alexander Severus was in a sort of sweep spot akin to Gaul during the time of Caesar - rich and powerful enough to warrant conquest, yet not rich rich and powerful enough to prevent said conquest. Anything much earlier and the Romans would see no point in taking the place, anything after the crisis and the Romans can't take the place. So if he plays his cards right Alexander Severus could potentially rightfully earn the cognomen 'Germanicus' by taking everything up to the Elbe. Major butterflies come the Volkerwanderung, as the tribes now on Rome's new frontier are not strong enough to be life-threatening to the Empire, on account of not having had the prolonged contact with Rome that lifted up their OTL cousins.


Except that Rome's biggest problem in the 3C (apart from Persia) was the Goths, who were on the Lower Danube, not the Rhine.

As the going gets heavier in the Balkans, won't any recent conquests in Germany just be lost again, as were Dacia, SW Germany and southern Scotland OTL?

Rome's last permanent conquests had been around Domitian's time, iirc. Later conquests were only temporary.
 
How does he get to reach such an age? That seems to require a much better behaved army than OTLs.

Even if by some stroke of luck he does, if the army behaves the same as OTL then things probably don't change much. The 26-emperor period just starts a generation later.
Couldn't a much luckier Severus reform the army so it doesn't happen?
 
Couldn't a much luckier Severus reform the army so it doesn't happen?

Would the army let itself be reformed? Emperors who quarreled with it had a very high mortality rate.

Keep in mind that the trouble didn't start with SA. In the forty years before his accession, only one Emperor (Septimius Severus) out of seven had died in bed. The other six were all assassinated or killed in civil war. The rot had already set in.
 
Would the army let itself be reformed? Emperors who quarreled with it had a very high mortality rate.

Keep in mind that the trouble didn't start with SA. In the forty years before his accession, only one Emperor (Septimius Severus) out of seven had died in bed. The other six were all assassinated or killed in civil war. The rot had already set in.

Septimius Severus, however, stayed in power by basically putting the army front and center (enrich the army, scorn all others, etc).
 
Rome was in objective trouble in 3rd century: both of the major foes that Rome had been bullying for 2 centuries (Germans and Persians) had adapted and got better.
It was not impossible for Rome to adapt. Persians and Germans did not get weaker in 4th century, but Rome adapted to deal with that.
The problem is that Rome did not handle the adaptation well. There was the 3rd century crisis before the 4th century recovery.
How to alleviate or avert the 3rd century crisis and handle the adaptation to new conditions better than in OTL?

Rome did suffer more invasions during the third century, but that was a symptom of Imperial weakness rather than a cause. When the Romans managed to get their act back together during the Tetrarchy, big foreign incursions promptly ceased.
 
Septimius Severus, however, stayed in power by basically putting the army front and center (enrich the army, scorn all others, etc).

Exactly. And afaics, if SA were to survive longer, it could only be by appeasing the soldiers as SS did. So at best the problem is only postponed.
 
Last edited:
What you really need to do is to change the preceding dynasty and make it more stable.

Yes, this means no brother-murdering Caracalla or transgender whoopee cushion-employing Elagabalus.
 

Deleted member 67076

Couldn't a much luckier Severus reform the army so it doesn't happen?
It is likely the army would have to be reformed in response to the rising threat of Sassanid Persia, and the lack of Roman mobility on the frontier.

This would mean a massive expansion of Roman troop presence, which in turn would mean an expansion and overhaul of the bureaucracy in order to maintain such a large military.

The army didn't have a problem being reformed historical given it got tired of losing constant campaigns against the Persians and realized its weakness
 
Lets be uncharitable and say moderately competent.
Well if he's lucky he may pull off reforms during his long reign. If he isn't well the empire is screwed.
It is likely the army would have to be reformed in response to the rising threat of Sassanid Persia, and the lack of Roman mobility on the frontier.

This would mean a massive expansion of Roman troop presence, which in turn would mean an expansion and overhaul of the bureaucracy in order to maintain such a large military.

The army didn't have a problem being reformed historical given it got tired of losing constant campaigns against the Persians and realized its weakness
so have the Roman lose not too badly or just barley win and reforms could be pushed threw?
 
How does he get to reach such an age? That seems to require a much better behaved army than OTLs.
It starts by crushing the sassanians in his first camapaign, which gives him credibility with the army. His problem is though what happens when he gets older? He was competent precisely because he was controlled by a council of competent advisors. If he can maintain that into old age, then he can do well. Mind, the Roman empire is still going to have serious problems with the army and with finances during this time, and with pressure from all sides. But with an early victory over the sassanians keeping them in check like the parthians before them, that alone will be a massive boost to the Romans.
 
Last edited:
It starts by crushing the sassanians in his first camapaign, which gives him credibility with the army. His problem is though what happens when he gets older? He was competent precisely because he was controlled by a council of competent advisors. If he can maintain that into old age, then he can do well. Mind, the Roman empire is still going to have serious problems with the army and with finances during this time, and with pressure from all sides. But with an early victory over the sassanians keeping them in check like the parthians before them, that alone will be a massive boost to the Romans.


Trouble is, the Sassanians aren't likely to stay crushed. Roman armies could get to Ctesiphon from time to time, but that was about the limit. And sooner or later the Persians recovered, the Romans were distracted by trouble elsewhere, or both. SA could certainly win a victory, but on past (and future) form it is unlikely to be lasting.
 
Trouble is, the Sassanians aren't likely to stay crushed. Roman armies could get to Ctesiphon from time to time, but that was about the limit. And sooner or later the Persians recovered, the Romans were distracted by trouble elsewhere, or both. SA could certainly win a victory, but on past (and future) form it is unlikely to be lasting.
The parthians were largely a non factor after the first century. They were always defeated without much problem. Of course wars will happen but the key is keeping them relatively weak, even if for a short while. This was what they were able to do with the parthians.
 
Top