AHC : A Roman Empire in Three Parts

The challenge is to create an uber-Roman Empire, that rather than dividing in two parts into a "Greek" and "Latin" Empire is to create an Empire that splits into three

1) A Western "Latin/German/Gallic" Empire
2) A Central "Greek" Empire
3) An Eastern "Persian"

That are the same Empire, or sibling Empires (or whatever you'd call OTL West and East.

Bonus points for the increased size of the Empires.
 
The Romans are more successful in their eastern wars, and manage to take large tracts of land from the Parthians. Then the Third-Century-Crisis (or analogue) comes along, and the Empire splits up without an Aurelian to reunite it. Hey presto, you now have three separate "Roman Empires".
 
Dividing the roman empire leads to nothing like the dark ages.
If you add a 3rd persian part, it will not get better.
A divided roman empire is either for lazy people not wiiling to face the challenge, or people who just like to write a nice novel. Which is fulley OK from my point of view.

But looking to a serious POD/TL: Avoid any division or get out of my sight.
 
Last edited:
Why not a northern Germanic? Too harsh to conquer?

Define "Northern Germanic" before 800 AD!

From a roman point of view, there is NOTHING worth to write home about beyond Rhine or Danube.
And from a strategic point of view, nothing worth to conquer beyond a line Elbe - Sudetes- Carphates.
 

Deleted member 97083

If Persia were conquered, it would simply be attached to the Eastern Empire in Constantinople. The Achaemenids managed to hold everything from Thrace to Egypt to Bactria for centuries.
 
If Persia were conquered, it would simply be attached to the Eastern Empire in Constantinople. The Achaemenids managed to hold everything from Thrace to Egypt to Bactria for centuries.

You do know that the roman way of governemnt and political structure was fully different to the Achamaenids, Parthians and Sassanids?
The roman way does not work here.
All you get, if you try to govern the roman way, is the perhaps worst Usrpator you can think about in your worst nightmares.
 
If Persia were conquered, it would simply be attached to the Eastern Empire in Constantinople. The Achaemenids managed to hold everything from Thrace to Egypt to Bactria for centuries.
Most likely wouldn't be ruled from Constantinople.Ctesiphon will most likely fulfill this role.But if Persia gets conquered,most likely there will be a third division.
 
It's a bit far from the Mediterranean Sea, the main transport network of the Roman Empire, and Aegyptus, the richest province of the Empire.
Except there isn't any threat from the Mediterranean.The main threats are likely to the East from one of the modern Stans and the Balkans.Antioch is too far away from the rest of Persia.At any rate,if Persia gets conquered,it should constitute a third empire in it's own right.
 
Except there isn't any threat from the Mediterranean.The main threats are likely to the East from one of the modern Stans and the Balkans.Antioch is too far away from the rest of Persia.At any rate,if Persia gets conquered,it should constitute a third empire in it's own right.
Someone should alert the Seleucids about the impracticality of ruling from Antioch.
 
Yep.Which is why they gradually lost large parts of the empire.
Their capital was never actually in Seleucia. Seleucus initially built the city as a capital before he conquered Syria. The seleucid empire fell for many reasons, almost all a result of the losses suffered by the Romans. None of them had anything to do with their capital being in Antioch or Seleucia Piera.


Edit: Syria is actually the perfect place to rule an empire like that from. Its at the crossroads of Egypt/Levant, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, and also has easy access to the Mediterranean. These areas will always be far, far more important to keep a close eye on than the "upper satrapy" areas further to the east. They are far more valuable and its essential the emperor is in that area or close to it to prevent usurpation or rebellion in such a crucial area.
 
Their capital was never actually in Seleucia. Seleucus initially built the city as a capital before he conquered Syria. The seleucid empire fell for many reasons, almost all a result of the losses suffered by the Romans. None of them had anything to do with their capital being in Antioch or Seleucia Piera.
Seleucia was the first Seleucid capital.As for why the empire fell,it has a large part to do with the Parthians,and before that,the Bactrians.Large parts of the empire broke from Seleucid rule even before the Romans came knocking.
 

Deleted member 97083

Yep.Which is why they gradually lost large parts of the empire to rebelling satraps to the east in Parthia and in Bactria.
The Seleucid control over Persia proper lasted 164 years--Antioch must have been a pretty strategic capital.
 
The Seleucid control over Persia proper lasted 164 years--Antioch must have been a pretty strategic capital.
And during those 164 years,there were frequent rebellions in the East,like the Parthians and the Bactrians.In the end,most of the empire was conquered by the Parthians,not the Romans.All the Romans did in the end was to put an end to their pathetic existence.Besides,in case you haven't realized,there are nomad hordes like the Hephthalites to the Eastern rear during the Sassanian era which brought tremendous amount of grief to the Sassanians.
 
Top